UK Green Leader Polanski Banned From Israel After Party Backs ‘Zionism Is Racism’ Motion

The far-left leader of the British Green Party, Zack Polanski, has been banned from entering the state of Israel after his party adopted a motion declaring “Zionism is racism” as official policy on Sunday.

At its annual party conference in Brighton on Sunday, Green members voted by a measure of 1,022 to 813 in favour of a motion put forward by the Greens for Palestine group, which said that Zionism should be “treated as any other form of racism” by the party. The motion also said that the party should advocate for a “single Palestinian state,” essentially calling for the destruction of Israel as a country.

The motion, which is now official Green Party policy, added that Zionism is “based upon European settler-colonial systems of domination and oppression, which has also created racial hierarchies between Jews of different ethnicities in Palestine” and that it represents the “historic and ongoing dehumanisation, displacement, dispossession, disenfranchisement and destruction of Palestinians.”

Although Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, did not attend the vote as he was campaigning for the upcoming Holborn & St Pancras by-election, Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced on Sunday evening that it has ordered an entry ban on the leftist politician from entering the country, saying that the party he leads “gives legitimacy to terrorism.”

“The Greens have adopted not only the green of Hamas, but also its ideology: the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Jerusalem added that the motion “legitimises armed struggle, calls for a Palestinian state ‘from the river to the sea’ — meaning the destruction of the State of Israel — and labels as ‘racist’ the aspiration of the Jewish people for self-determination.”

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid also condemned the motion, saying: “I am a Zionist. I believe in the Jewish people’s right to a state in our homeland, in our right to live in peace and security. As we prepare to mark three years since the October 7th massacre, the UK Green Party has chosen to side with terrorists and antisemites. It is not Zionism that’s racism, it is the Green Party.”

Prior to the vote, Polanski had sought to hedge his support, saying that while he is a committed anti-Zionist, he would only support the motion if the wording calling for a single Palestinian state was removed, and a carve-out was made for Jewish members to avoid being labelled as racist for attending synagogues and other Jewish community organisations that classify themselves as Zionist.

Nevertheless, Polanski said that he agreed with the sentiment, saying that “if your Zionism is the displacement of the Palestinian people, then that’s clearly racist”.

However, the motion has apparently caused a rift within the party between its traditional base of left-wing environmentalists and the recent influx of Muslims disaffected with the Labour Party.

Indeed, while relatively new arrivals like Deputy leader Mothin Ali supported the motion, others, such as former party leader Caroline Lucas, condemned it as being “divisive” and a “sign that Jewish people aren’t welcome in the party”.

Polanski, who oversaw a resurgence in the Greens’ popularity, is facing growing questions about his leadership, with some suggesting that a loss in the Holborn & St Pancras by-election to fill former PM Sir Keir Starmer’s vacated seat in Parliament could see him ousted as Green leader.

Polanski denied that his leadership is determined on a victory, telling The Guardian last week that his position “doesn’t depend on it whatsoever”, while describing the race as “probably 50/50 right now” and “really on a knife edge”.

breitbart

France faces its Soweto uprising 1976

France is not experiencing a student protest. It is watching the same leftist method that set Soweto alight in 1976 to test how much of the country it can burn before the state blinks.

The pretext in South Africa was allegedly Afrikaans in the classroom. The pretext now is missing teachers, overcrowded rooms, and buildings left to rot.

None of these complaints licenses what followed, any more than a language decree licensed the fires and the deaths that the organizers of Soweto treated as the necessary price of the spectacle.

By Wednesday the Interior Ministry had recorded 1,949 arrests for violence against police or property damage and 305 injured officers and gendarmes. Education officials counted 170 injured students and 65 injured staff. At least two dozen schools were ransacked or burned. A fire truck was attacked in Marseille. Buses were stoned and torched. In Toulouse a teacher who tried to hold off attackers with a fire extinguisher was knocked down. Footage from La Rochelle showed migrant youths beating a white teenager. Journalists were assaulted. Smoke rose over Bordeaux and a dozen other cities. This is not real adolescent anger. It is the standard operating procedure of the same postcodes that have supplied France’s rioters for twenty years: young men of North African and sub-Saharan origin for whom a burning bin is both entertainment and political credential.

School toilets in Limpopo, South Africa today. As of late 2025, approximately 37.9% of South Africans, or 23 million people, live below the lower-bound poverty line (LBPL) of R1,300 per person per month. ‘Freedom’ evidently came at a steep price. Photo supplied

Soweto’s crowds were mobilized the same way—students pushed into the street by organizers who understood that a march becomes useful only when it meets bullets after setting the school alight.

The useful idiots and the stage managers have never left the stage. In 1976 the Black Consciousness networks, the ANC’s exile apparatus, and the South African Communist Party’s long cultivation of “youth struggle” turned an orchestrated school grievance and empty promises into a national uprising and then into a founding myth.

Intelligence services told the French government’s crisis meeting that the 2026 movement was an operation organized by La France Insoumise and its ultra-left trotskyite proxies. LFI did not bother with deniability. MP Mathilde Panot posted the images and wrote “Glory to the youth who are writing the history of the country. France, that’s them!”

The LFI mayor of Saint-Denis, Bally Bagayoko, turned up to sing and dance in front of an open fire after having already declared that violence can be legitimate resistance. Jean-Luc Mélenchon called the students harmless and accused the crackdown of racist undertones. These are deliberate statements exonerating the arsonists.

They are the same offer the left has always made to the street: we will supply the slogan and the absolution; you supply the bodies and the matches.

Éric Zemmour named the transaction exactly. The violence is “a dress rehearsal, a small-scale foretaste of the chaos that Mélenchon and the LFI are preparing for France.”

Robespierre had his sans-culottes, Lenin his Red Guards, the South African left its Soweto cohort; Mélenchon has his immigrant gangs. The era changes, the method does not. Every burned lycée and hospitalized teacher is campaign literature, just as every casualty in Soweto became poster and statute.

Hector Peterson, killed by a stray bullet, comes to mind. South African reporting from the early 2000s, citing Hector’s sister Antoinette Sithole, stated that the Pitso family changed his name to “Peterson” to appeal to the Scandinavian sponsors of the riots, but that the siblings had always treated the adopted name as something of a joke.

The banlieue now knows that LFI will excuse them, and it tells everyone else that electing anyone who promises order—above all Marine Le Pen—will be met with insurrection.

The left does not even conceal the bargain because it no longer calculates that concealment is necessary. It did not conceal it in 1976 either; it simply waited until the smoke cleared and claimed the students “had acted alone”.

PM Sébastien Lecornu’s emergency meeting and Education Minister Édouard Geffray’s offer of talks are the Republic negotiating with its arsonists while the fires are being lit. Student organizations have already promised further actions.

The staff victims, the education minister noted, were frequently attacked by people who were not their own pupils. The distinction between protester and predator was erased on day one, as LFI’s elected officials posed for the photographs. France has run this experiment before: 2005, injecting violence into the the yellow vests’ protests as well as into the 2023 Nahel riots triggered by the fatal police shooting of 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk.

South Africa ran it in Soweto and then for decades afterward. Each time the same coalition—radical left rhetoric, mobilized youth muscle, official hesitation—produced the same ash and the same legend.

According to South African police IRIS data analyzed by researchers at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa currently logs between 10,000 and 15,000 crowd incidents annually. During peak periods of unrest, monitors like Municipal IQ have recorded recent years with thousands of protest actions over brief 90-day windows—sometimes averaging over 30 separate localized protests per day across different towns and townships. International news outlets ignore these since they are anti-ANC protests.

The novelty in October 2026 is the electoral calendar and the candor. The alliance is no longer whispered. It is dancing in front of the fire and calling the flames history, exactly as the organizers of Soweto called theirs. One revolt was aimed at a racial white minority state; the other is aimed at a white majority democracy that has already extended citizenship, schools, and welfare to the populations now burning them.

The instigators do not care about the optics. A grievance is a grievance, a crowd is a crowd, violence begets violence and a photograph of glory writes itself once the fires are lit. If the state continues to treat that as a misunderstanding rather than a strategy copied across fifty years and two continents, the dress rehearsal will simply become the performance.

freewestmedia

‘Mystery meat migrant rappers are calling to hunt me’ – Austrian remigration activist Martin Sellner faces ‘hunting’ threats in new rap video

Austrian remigration activist and CEO of the Institute for Remigration Martin Sellner stated on Sunday that a rap video circulating on Instagram calls for him to be hunted. He contrasted the clip’s availability online with restrictions he says platforms have placed on the accounts of those on the anti-immigration right.

Sellner posted the roughly 26-second clip on X. In the video, several migrant men stand in a graffiti-marked underpass under colored lights and make a number of threats and statements opposed to Germany

Mystery meat migrant rappers are calling to hunt me.

This song is not censored, while we are deplatformed everywhere.

The only thing more embarrassing than their “rap” is, that their corny radical chic is platformed by all media and indirectly funded by state money.— Martin Sellner (@MartinSellner_) October 4, 2026

English text overlaid on the rap video includes, “Martin Sellner is in danger from today,” “We are shootin’ with AKs” and “I am hunting Martin Sellner.”

In addition, the rappers claim that “Germany has no right to exist,” 

Other on-screen text refers to streets burning and to bombs “like in Dresden ’45.” Dresden was firebombed by the Allies at the end of the Second World War, resulting in at least 25,000 German civilians losing their lives.

In response to the video, Sellner wrote: “Mystery meat migrant rappers are calling to hunt me. This song is not censored, while we are deplatformed everywhere. The only thing more embarrassing than their ‘rap’ is that their corny radical chic is platformed by all media and indirectly funded by state money.”

German criminal law treats certain public threats as offenses independent of whether they are carried out. Artistic freedom may not serve as a defense in this case when the threats are specific, directed at an individual, and describe violent acts.

Section 241 of the German criminal code related to threats penalizes threatening a person with a crime against sexual self-determination, bodily integrity, personal freedom or property of significant value. The penalty rises if the threatened act is a felony or if the threat is made publicly or by distributing content, with maximum terms reaching three years in the aggravated public cases. 

Section 126 penalizes threatening specified serious crimes, including murder, aggravated assault or certain explosives offenses, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, with a maximum of three years’ imprisonment.

Austrian law contains a parallel offense of dangerous threat under Section 107 of the Austrian Criminal Code when a person is menaced with death, serious injury or other grave harm in a way that is capable of causing reasonable fear.

In recent years, German public figures and politicians have brought thousands of Germans into court for various statements online that were not direct threats, but instead mere insults. In some cases, these social media users only sharply criticized these politicians. 

Sellner, 37, led the Identitarian Movement of Austria for years and has promoted large-scale returns of migrants. Most recently, he founded the Institute for Remigration. Germany and Switzerland have at times imposed entry bans on him tied to public-order concerns. Some of those measures were later limited or overturned by courts. 

rmx

UN rapporteur warns France after journalist fined for prison remarks on transgenderism

Screengrab youtube

A UN expert has warned that France is punishing women for stating safety concerns about men in women’s spaces, after a Paris court fined the French journalist Dora Moutot for comments on a television debate about transgender prisoners.

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, said on October 2 that she was seriously concerned by Moutot’s conviction and by other proceedings linked to her statements on sex and gender.

“As women, saying that we need to exercise caution around men, particularly where there are reasons to fear for our safety, does not in itself constitute hate speech,” Alsalem said.

Women “should not be sanctioned for expressing concerns about their own safety or that of other women and girls”.

On May 20 the 17th chamber of the Paris judicial court, which hears press-law cases, convicted Moutot of public insult against a person or group on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and ordered her to pay €4,754 in total.

The judgment included a €1,000 fine, with damages to the civil parties and their legal costs making up the rest.

She has appealed.

The case began as a prosecution for incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination, brought under the 1881 press freedom law by three LGBT associations — Stop Homophobie, Mousse and Adheos — after a France 2 debate on October 15, 2022.

The court reclassified the offence as insult.

It found that her words did “not call, implicitly or explicitly, on the public to engage in violence, discrimination or hatred” against transgender women, but still treated them as “a form of expression that spreads hatred based on intolerance”.

The remarks were made on the programme Quelle époque !, opposite Marie Cau, the first transgender woman elected mayor in France. Cau took the village of Tilloy-lez-Marchiennes, northern France, in 2020 and stood down in January 2025.

Discussing prisons, Moutot referred to cases in the United States and England in which male prisoners convicted of violence against women had been transferred to women’s prisons after identifying as female, and had then assaulted female inmates.

She said she was not claiming that all transgender people did this, “far from it”, but that “as women, we have to be wary of people with penises”.

The court held that describing transgender women as “people with penises” of whom women must be wary reduced them to a male sexual attribute.

This was deemed a public insult.

Moutot also said of Cau: “For me, Marie Cau is a man, a transfeminine man.”

The conviction is not the only case she faces. Moutot is also being pursued over Transmania, the book she published in 2024 with the feminist campaigner Marguerite Stern, after a complaint by another association, SOS Homophobie.

Alsalem has also raised death threats, calls for physical violence, online harassment and doxxing reported against Moutot, and complaints she says were closed without the authors being identified.

She has asked Paris for information on the conviction, the appeal, the other cases, and on what it is doing to let women debate sex and gender without violence or disproportionate limits on expression.

The UN expert has urged the French authorities “to take appropriate measures” to protect the essayist, “while respecting the independence of ongoing judicial proceedings”.

Alsalem, a Jordanian lawyer who has held the mandate since 2021, is one of the independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Such experts serve unpaid and do not speak for the UN.

The French Government has not yet replied in public.

brusselssignal

The Brussels Swamp Comes to Budapest

Hungary’s election was presented as a democratic correction. In reality, it signals something more consequential: the dismantling of a sovereign, conservative democracy and the restoration of a liberal order increasingly governed from Brussels, writes Czech political analyst and journalist Ladislav Zemánek for Hungary Today.

What has happened in Hungary since the election? The simple answer is “regime change”. Péter Magyar and his supporters have described the result as a decisive break with the political system built by Viktor Orbán. His TISZA party secured a constitutional majority, and Magyar has promised to restore Hungary’s “European path”, strengthen ties with Brussels and implement reforms demanded by the European Union.

This is being praised as a successful “redemocratization” of Hungary. Yet Hungary is not merely changing government. It is being brought back into the liberal-democratic mainstream as defined by Brussels — a mainstream increasingly willing to tolerate authoritarian methods when they serve the right political ends.

Francis Fukuyama, the intellectual grandfather of the idea that liberal democracy represents the final stage of human history, has already praised Orbán’s defeat as a model for Americans confronting Donald Trump. That reaction is revealing. The Hungarian election is being celebrated not simply as a national decision, but as a victory in a wider ideological struggle against conservative, sovereign and populist politics.

Back to yesterday’s Europe

Magyar’s government has taken a step backwards. Budapest’s ambition to return to the “European mainstream” will hardly end well. What Brussels bureaucracy and Western liberalism represent is not the future, but decline and isolation: yesterday’s world rather than tomorrow’s.

Orbán’s Hungary, for all its flaws and mistakes, understood something important before many others did. It anticipated the emergence of a multipolar, post-Western order and attempted to adapt Hungarian and Central European interests to that reality. It cultivated partnerships with Americans, Chinese, Russians, fellow Europeans and others wherever this benefited Hungary. It advocated peace rather than permanent war.

The country became a forerunner of a post-liberal Europe in which freedom, sovereignty, people and tradition matter. That is why Orbán’s Hungary became such a thorn in the side. It challenged the assumption that every European government must accept the same political, cultural and geopolitical program.

For that reason, the Hungarian government had to be removed. And it was.
Brussels rewards its own

The silence from Brussels after Magyar’s government assumed power is telling — and entirely logical. Liberal democracy must be restored and the rebellious country pacified. There should be no naivety about political realities in today’s European Union. Brussels is seeking to tighten its grip, even at the cost of deeper intervention in national elections, media and the information space, and our fundamental rights.

Instruments such as the Digital Services Act and the European Democracy Shield are presented as safeguards against disinformation, foreign interference and malign actors. But any system that grants unelected supranational institutions and NGOs increasing power to determine what information is legitimate, which political forces are respectable and which opinions constitute a threat deserves scrutiny. Even our American allies have criticized the direction of European censorship policy.

The principle increasingly seems clear: extraordinary measures become acceptable when the liberal order is considered to be in danger. And it is in danger — across Europe.

The Orbán government was repeatedly condemned for alleged rule-of-law violations. Billions of euros were withheld from Hungary, demonstrating how EU funding and the rule-of-law mechanism could function as political levers. Once the government changed, the money began to move. This does not prove that every criticism of the former Hungarian government was unfounded. It does, however, raise a fundamental question: are the same standards being applied regardless of which political forces are in power?

The rules depend on the team

Magyar’s government has already taken decisions that have provoked controversy even among members of the transnational “Blob”. Yet no comparable punishment is expected from Brussels.

There will be no serious sanction for interference in the media and education system. No meaningful countermeasure for removing the president, chief prosecutor, intelligence chiefs, the head of the Constitutional Court and a wide range of senior officials. No expression of concern over the seizure of FIDESZ’s data servers. On the contrary, these developments are quietly welcome.

Why? Because TISZA is part of the “gang”. Magyar’s movement belongs to the same political network that dominates the European Parliament and the European Commission. Data show that TISZA has aligned with the European People’s Party in 84.3 per cent of European Parliament votes. The figure does not tell the whole story, but it reveals the direction of travel.

The new leaders in Budapest do not conceal their desire to bring Hungary closer to the euro-bureaucratic class and conform to its interests. The problem is that these circles often distrust sovereignty and genuine popular democracy while continuing to isolate Europe from the outside world and impose increasingly dangerous policies on member states and their citizens.

Most alarming is their approach to war. Rather than seeking a peaceful settlement, Brussels continues to push Europeans towards war with Russia — a confrontation that is not in Europe’s interest. Orbán’s government did the opposite. It resisted escalation and insisted that Hungary’s first responsibility was to protect its own citizens. For that position, Hungary had to be punished.

Nothing new under the sun

The campaign against the former government was not merely domestic. It was conducted from abroad and coordinated with Kyiv. Intelligence operations targeted senior Hungarian officials, including Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó.

Leaked communications and the wider political campaign revealed just how deeply concerned liberal globalists were about Hungary’s independent course.

There is nothing new under the sun. Donald Trump experienced a similar combination of institutional resistance, intelligence controversies, media hostility and persecution. Yet he defeated his opponents and promised to drain the swamp and break the deep state.

His story contains an important lesson for Central Europe. The world is changing. Political success stories can still be written in the West — and they are essential if the West is to be saved. Post-Orbán Hungary may eventually find that returning to the Brussels mainstream does not mean returning to normality. It means accepting the dictate, geopolitical impotence, ideological uniformity and woke agendas that Hungary’s previous government resisted.

But history is moving faster than Brussels. A broader Central Europe is no longer the periphery of Europe’s political future. It is becoming one of the places where that future will be decided. The countries that defend their sovereignty, preserve their identity and cooperate on their own terms may yet shape the Europe that comes next.

hungarytoday

The West is so infiltrated by radical Muslims and terrorists that it cannot trust law enforcement

GROK

by Giulio Meotti

An Omani pilot wanted to crash a Flydubai plane bound for Tel Aviv with over a hundred Israeli passengers on board. How did he manage to enter a plane to fly to Israel and get a blade on board? Who helped him? Who can we trust?

Meanwhile…

“Hamas planned coordinated terrorist attacks in Berlin and Vienna to commemorate the anniversary of the October 7 massacre in Israel,” according to a 214-page indictment filed by the German federal prosecutor. The attacks were meant to target Israeli and Jewish sites in the two European capitals.

Seven men have been charged.

“One of the defendants worked for the German intelligence agency.”

London, meanwhile, had granted asylum and citizenship to the bodyguard of the late Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The terrorist was preparing an attack coinciding with the anniversary of the October 7 massacre. Haniyeh’s former bodyguard had helped smuggle weapons for the attacks.

Who vouched for him at the Foreign Office?

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a former British ambassador, revealed this summer that British diplomacy is heavily infiltrated by Islamists.

Meanwhile British police hold seminars for their officers on “the danger of Nigel Farage’s Islamophobia.”

Who runs these seminars? A former Islamic police officer.

In an interview with Bild, Güner Balci, integration delegate for the Berlin district of Neukölln, revealed that “Islamist infiltration in Germany is so widespread that there are police projects in which Islamists participate.”

Did we read that right?

In Germany, Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard also lives at the taxpayer’s expense.

The Association of British Muslim Police Officers (yes, such a thing exists) has just been embroiled in a scandal for defending Hamas.

Baroness Falkner, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stated: “If citizens no longer felt they could trust that the police always act according to the fundamental principle of operating without fear or favor, there would be risks to the rule of law itself.”

When loyalty splits, the state is no longer inclusive: it exposes itself.

Among the serious problems that few see coming is the infiltration of the security forces, police, army and magistrates.

The independent watchdog of the British police stated, at the end of a two-year investigation, that it had been unable to establish why Greater Manchester Police had shelved an inquiry into Asian rape gangs…

The other most obvious example of Islamic influence on law enforcement was the West Midlands police scandal, in which unfounded intelligence was used to justify banning Israeli fans from the stadium for the football match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Aston Villa last year. The involvement of Muslim city councillors and community liaison police officers influenced the decisions taken by then-chief constable Craig Guildford.

A few months ago, an investigation in Sweden revealed that police officers had passed confidential information to terrorist gangs. In four cases the leaks were followed by murder attacks. At least 30 police employees were considered “national security risks.”

In France, a Muslim police official charged with protecting the director of Charlie Hebdo and imam Hassen Chalghoumi, threatened by Islamists, was removed. The officer was dismissed because of his “strong interest in radical Islam.” The policeman, who had been promoted to brigadier general, had also protected Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit to Paris.

A confidential memo leaked from the Department of Public Security, published by Le Parisien, described cases of French police officers who refused to protect synagogues.

In England they have arrested police officers for supporting Hamas.

On September 11, 2001 we slept far too soundly and did not notice that the attackers taking flying lessons in Florida were more interested in takeoff than landing.

In recent days a film based on anonymous sources, Naza, received 25 minutes of applause at the Venice Film Festival (not even in Stalin’s Russia) for slinging mud at a famous Israeli intelligence unit, “8200.”

Isn’t that the same Israeli unit that prevented ISIS from blowing up three hundred people over the ocean on a plane that had taken off from Sydney? And warned the UK about the terror plot near the RAF Fairford military air base ?

While Israel came dramatically close to a new 9/11 on the Israeli Azrieli skyscrapers, Westerners must hope the Israeli Dark Knights never get tired of them.

israelnationalnews

Cowardly Europe Fears Dissent

Image created using AI.americanthinker

by J.B. Shurk

Former-banker-turned-tiny-French-President Emmanuel Macron blasted what he called “American free speech” while speaking to reporters last week. Defending the European Union’s robust censorship policies, le petit fromage insisted that Europe’s speech-policing Digital Services Act should censor information that governments consider false “much more extensively, much faster, and much more forcefully.”

Macron then did his Orwellian best to condemn free speech as oppression and praise censorship as liberation: “So-called American ‘free speech’—at least as it exists today and has been promoted by some people—is the opposite of free speech.” The terribly disliked French leader continued, “My freedom cannot mean that I am free to…insult you or vandalize the public square that belongs to everyone. Yet that is some people’s idea of ‘free speech.’”

Then the little mouse of a man roared, “Until we hold those who disseminate content on social media accountable, we will not be able to regulate it.” Furthermore, if “someone writes something” that is “false,” then that person should be “held accountable.” Tough talk from an insecure man afraid of words.

What is going on in Europe? Why is the whole continent so scared of public debate and dissent? If the political Establishment is unable to defend its ideas and policies without censoring the opposition, then its ideas and policies are absolute rubbish! The people who have willed their way to power across Europe apparently believe that they cannot win an argument unless they are the only ones permitted to speak!

That’s a bit like a puny pugilist demanding that referees tie another boxer’s hands behind his back before declaring himself world heavyweight champion!

Personally, I think mini-mouse Macron is just tired of people pointing out that he married his grandmother (or his grandfather, as the case might be). We used to teach our children, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Now Western leaders are so terrified of words that they’d rather imprison everyone with an opinion than learn to take a joke or hear a contrary point of view.

Here’s the truth that Macron and his fellow Euro-weenie censors refuse to understand: Free speech is free only when a speaker can say something offensive or controversial without fear of the State’s wrath.

Although Macron wants to criminalize speech that he considers untrue, he spreads endless falsehoods of his own! While beseeching British Prime Minister Andy Burnham to betray the will of voters who chose to leave the European Union ten years ago, the Napoleon-complex-afflicted French president whined, “Brexit is the biggest lie of the last thirty years!” That boast is absurdly false (or what European censors call criminal “misinformation”). The British people did vote to separate themselves from Queen Ursula von der Leyen’s European empire.

Even though Brexit fearmongers predicted imminent economic collapse should the British people choose to rule themselves—and despite the best efforts of Brexit saboteurs at home and abroad—the United Kingdom is currently outperforming France and other major European economies, having led the G7 in growth during the first half of 2026. One reason Brexiters voted to leave the E.U. in 2016 was because British citizens did not want their military to be swallowed into a European Army beyond their control—a prospect, ironically enough, which pro-E.U. stalwarts once called “disinformation” but which has proved increasingly prescient.

Queen von der Leyen and her Brussels Eurocrats are working feverishly today to use the Russia-Ukraine War as an excuse to create increasingly centralized European defense structures.

It’s also worth remembering that European expansionists originally promoted the Union as an intergovernmental body meant to boost European economic markets and promised that the supranational institution would never directly usurp national sovereignties. That was a clear case of “misinformation” and certainly one of the biggest lies of the last half-century!

Speaking of lies that European leaders have promoted as “truths,” the Russia Collusion Hoax against President Trump (which British and Ukrainian intelligence agencies helped to propagate), the “global warming” apocalypse (which was scheduled to kill us all fourteen years ago), and the “Reign of COVID Error” (during which “health experts” lied about the virus arising from nature instead of a Chinese laboratory and then lied about fake “vaccines” being “safe and effective”) are three of the biggest mass frauds and information warfare campaigns ever perpetrated by governments against the public.

Macron has never called for these lies to be censored from social media platforms. He just doesn’t like it when random Americans point out that the European Union is an undemocratic and totalitarian system of governance that should be burned to the ground. And he really doesn’t like it when commoners correctly point out that his old high school teacher—and abusive wife—sometimes slaps him around.

Unfortunately, Macron’s inability to understand the importance of free speech is a European-wide learning disability.

In the U.K., a member of the public has filed a Prevent referral against eighty-six-year-old comedy legend John Cleese because he continues to make fun of Islam’s love for rape and murder. The complaint argues that Cleese should be considered a “moderate to high risk” for “radicalisation, communal tension, and hate incidents” for writing, among other things, “I personally prefer a culture that does not approve of FGM, Child Marriage and Killing Infidels.”

The complaint accuses Cleese of “anti-Muslim hate” and seeks further scrutiny of the cultural icon. In response to news of the referral, the Monty Python alum wrote, “The Islamic male ego becomes so bloated by its lack of restraint that it believes any criticism is blasphemy,” and, “I look forward to being arrested.” Later, he declared his targeting “One of the proudest moments of my life.”

Meanwhile, a retired police officer was recently fined more than £1,000 under the U.K.’s Communications Act for reposting a bacon joke ridiculing Islam. As one free speech advocate rightly observed, “No-one making a similar joke about Jesus would face prosecution.”

At the same time that it targets retired cops for having a sense of humor, the British government continues to hand out “skilled worker sponsorship licenses” to Islamic bookstores that sell books on jihad!

An Islamic preacher in London encourages Muslim men to beat their wives if they refuse to obey. The same Islamic cleric describes “acceptable” execution methods for gay men, including throwing them off tall buildings and pummeling their bodies with rocks. These sermons are available on YouTube.

Nevertheless, the mosque still enjoys charitable status in the U.K. Islamic jihadists preach violence and murder, and law enforcement agencies ignore their threats, just as they ignored—for decades—Islamic men raping tens of thousands of young girls across Britain.

However, when a comedian and a retired police officer mock Islam’s penchant for violence, the British government scrutinizes their speech as “threats.” That should be no surprise when U.K. police forces instruct officers that Nigel Farage’s immigration beliefs are “Islamophobic hate crimes” and encourage non-Muslim staff to fast during Ramadan in “solidarity” with their Islamic conquerors.

Two-tiered “free speech” is official government policy. Furthermore, a Home Office-linked unit has been recording social media criticism of the government’s Prevent program, including 77 observations concerning people and organizations criticizing Prevent on X and Reddit. Documents show that government-linked officials are monitoring and recording the speech of people who publicly challenge this controversial counter-extremism policy.

Orwellian brutes now govern Europe. Need further proof? The Green Party in the U.K. wants to replace “mother” and “father” with more “inclusive” terms. Meanwhile, the Germans just awarded the Westphalian Peace Prize to NATO’s military alliance.

Parents are strangers. War is peace. Free speech is violence. Censorship promotes liberty.

In truth, freedom in Europe is dead.

americanthinker

Anti-migrant protesters march in UK seaside town as Channel dinghy arrives on south coast

Screengrab youtube

Droves of anti-migrant protesters took to the streets in Hampshire on Sunday evening as a dinghy of around 150 migrants arrived on Britain’s south coast.

The dinghy set off from Cherbourg in western Normandy at 6am this morning, and arrived in Hampshire after crossing the Channel from Normandy at around 10.30pm.

Police were earlier seen mobilising in Portsmouth and Gosport areas ahead of the protests launched to welcome the arrivals.

The Hampshire and Isle of Wight force were also seen escorting a convoy of buses, which would be used to transport migrants brought to the nearby port for processing.

Around 100 demonstrators have gathered near Haslar Marina in Gosport, with a police cordon put in place on Haslar Road.

The atmosphere mostly remained peaceful, despite a few tense moments when police vans attempted to drive through the crowd into the marina car park.

Some protesters stopped the vans from advancing by standing in front of them, as crowds gathered around the vans chanting “shame on you” and “deport the lot”.

Around 2am, police began to disperse protesters, allowing for a four coach convoy to be escorted out of the port town to processing facilities in Kent.

A number of people were seen arriving at a marina in Gosport, having been transported aboard two RNLI boats, shadowed by French rescue vessels until it was met by the RNLI boats in English waters, according to ship tracking data.

A barricade was erected on one of the roads nearby the harbour.

Councillor George Madgwick, leader of Reform UK on Hampshire Council, earlier wrote on X: “Unfortunately I hate to report that Gosport is the planned landing point for today’s migrant boat.

“I’ve had confirmation from a source in the military and separately a local worker, that the plan is to dock there today.”

Responding to that post, former Home Secretary and now Reform MP Suella Braverman wrote: “An absolute disaster for Gosport, Fareham and Warerlooville. The government must intervene and stop this happening now.”

Protesters turned out in the hundreds when two lifeboats arrived in Eastney, near Portsmouth in early September.

Another attempt to land more migrants in the area in the weeks that follows had to be abandoned due to further protests in Dover, Southampton and Gosport.

Those illegal immigrants were instead taken by Border Security Command vessels to Dover harbour.

On tonight’s Channel arrivals, councillor Madgwick added: “This is an absolute shambles. If they dock in Portsmouth Harbour, the home of the Royal Navy, that is disgusting.

“When will this government realise that they need to stop the boats. They are not welcome here.

“But there is hope. Last time they planned to dock there they changed course. Let’s hope they do the same today. If you’re heading there stay peaceful and calm.”

A Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police spokesman said: “We are currently working with partner agencies following a report of a small boat crossing in the English Channel.

“We know how these incidents can impact local communities and are aware of a group of people gathering in Gosport.

“We have deployed officers to the area to support our partners in the event of an emergency at sea, and to facilitate peaceful protest.

“To ensure the safety of our local communities as well as those who may wish to protest, we are making use of a variety of police powers.”

Under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, police have imposed restrictions on protestors until 4pm tomorrow forcing demonstrators to gather inside nearby Walpole car park.”

Failure to comply with these conditions is a criminal offence and may result in arrest”, the force said.

Powers under Section 158 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 and Section 60AA under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are also in place in Gosport and Portsmouth until 4pm tomorrow, prohibiting the wearing of face coverings used to conceal identity.

“This will assist in preventing offences, protecting communities and supporting the lawful exercise of democratic rights by all participants”, the force added.

Officers have also implemented a dispersal order under Section 34 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to cover the town of Gosport, in place until 7am on Tuesday.

The order gives officers the power to order a person to leave the area with no return within a specified time period. Those who refuse to comply with the order are committing a criminal offence and are liable for arrest.

The provisional total for Channel crossings this year is 19,451.

A Government spokesman said: “The Border Security Command works around the clock to monitor the Channel and protect our border. It is vital we continue to detain, check and process every small boat arrival.

“Migrants will be transported to short term holding facilities in Kent where they will be processed as normal and undergo stringent health, security and biometric checks.”

gbnews

Flavio Bolsonaro Wins First Round of Brazilian Elections, Leading 47.3% to 44.9% over Dirty CCP-Puppet Lula – Conservatives Win Record Number in Senate – Runoff Oct. 25

Flavio Bolsonaro wins first round in presidential election in Brazil.

Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of political prisoner and former president Jair Bolsonaro, won the first round of voting in the Brazilian elections on Sunday over CCP-puppet Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva.

Flavio Bolsonaro spent the entire night flirting with 50%, but he was not able to hit the magic number of 50% plus one.

Because Bolsonaro did not gain a majority of the vote, there will be a runoff election on October 25.

Brazil conducts essentially all of its elections through electronic voting machines (urnas eletrônicas), and has done so nationwide since 2000. There are no paper ballots. The system helped commie Lula defeat wildly popular Jair Bolsonaro in 2022. Then, Lula had his rival arrested and imprisoned. Just like the Democrats like to do in America!

Flavio was not able to hit the 50% mark all night for some reason.

However, Bolsonaro’s Progressive (conservative) party emerged as the largest force in the Senate.

The conservatives had a record night in the Senate.

Lula’s Federal Police placed the US under investigation during the election on Sunday.

This sets the stage for the socialists to annul the likely election loss they will suffer later this month.

The communists were hurting after their USAID money was nixed.

USAID donations to Brazil doubled in Brazil after Bolsonaro won in 2018. That was taxpayer dollars going to commies to take down the conservative! Trump ended that.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei posted a congratulations to Flavio and Brazil.

thegatewaypundit

The Viennese left-wing party LINKS used the slogan “Allahu Akbar” to illustrate a social media post

Vienna’s Left Party uses ‘Allahu Akbar’ as slogan. Screenshot LINKS / Facebook

A dangerous alliance between the far left and radical Islam: the Viennese party LINKS is calling for an attack on the headscarf ban and blaming the state and the media for alleged racism. This deliberate blurring of boundaries threatens social harmony in the capital.
The radical Viennese group LINKS is causing outrage with a scandalous campaign. The slogan ‘Allahu Akbar’ is emblazoned in huge letters on its official platforms – a phrase that has evoked deeply negative associations long before the recent Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe. Instead of clearly distancing itself from Islamist ideology, the far-left party is deliberately using the slogan as a hook to mobilise opposition to the planned headscarf ban in schools and to reinterpret this misogynistic symbol as a matter of so-called religious freedom.

In an unprecedented reversal of the perpetrator-victim narrative, the far-left accuses the Austrian political establishment and the media landscape across the board of ‘anti-Muslim racism’. The headscarf ban, which is primarily intended to protect underage girls from religious and family coercion, is branded a ‘racist law’ by the far left. By escalating the issue in this way, the party is defaming any attempt to uphold values such as equality and secular education in the face of religious fundamentalism.

The online campaign marks the start of further mobilisations within left-wing circles. On October 8, the group is inviting people to its club premises on the Rechten Wienzeile to rant about racism, which they claim is deeply entrenched in the state. This campaign highlights once again the creeping erosion of boundaries amongst sections of the Viennese left, who, out of sheer hatred for the bourgeois order, no longer even shy away from aligning themselves with the most reactionary forces of political Islam.

Unzensuriert