What defines a nation? Common descent, culture, history, language. Britain once knew this, but today faces a balkanised future. Migrant hotel crime is one symptom of a broader project: the dispossession of the British people by the political class.
Month: September 2025
French PM: Italy Stealing Our Millionaires
French Prime Minister François Bayrou has accused Italy of luring away France’s wealthy taxpayers, prompting a sharp rebuke from Rome just days before a no-confidence vote that could topple his government.
In a televised interview on Sunday evening carried by four news channels, Bayrou accused Giorgia Meloni’s government of pursuing a “tax dumping” policy that, according to him, is driving wealthy taxpayers out of France and weakening the state’s revenues.
“The wealthiest people are leaving. There is a kind of fiscal nomadism. For example, Italy is currently applying a tax dumping policy,” Bayrou stated, as he defended his rejection of the so-called “Zucman tax,” a proposal to levy a 2% charge on assets exceeding €100 million.
The remarks drew an immediate response from Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, who wrote a strongly worded statement on her official X account:
The completely unfounded claims by French Prime Minister François Bayrou that Italy is engaging in tax dumping, penalizing France, are astonishing. Italy does not apply unjustified tax advantages to attract European companies.
Stupiscono le affermazioni, totalmente infondate, del primo ministro francese Francois Bayrou, secondo le quali l’Italia starebbe facendo “dumping fiscale”, penalizzando la Francia. L’economia italiana è attrattiva e va meglio di altre grazie alla stabilità e credibilità della…
— Giorgia Meloni (@GiorgiaMeloni) August 31, 2025
Meloni further recalled that her government has tightened the rules for high-income foreigners relocating to Italy, doubling the flat tax regime since 2016. The Italian government argued this showed the country was not acting as a “tax haven.”
The main parties in the governing coalition unanimously backed the response. The Lega party branded Bayrou’s comments a “serious and unacceptable attack against Italy, its entrepreneurs and workers,” while Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani (Forza Italia) declared:
I am astonished. This accusation is the result of completely flawed reasoning. I don’t want to comment on France’s situation, but Italy is not conspiring against anyone. The EU has real tax havens, and we are not among them.
The exchange has once again highlighted long-standing tensions within the European Union over tax competition between member states. EU officials have so far avoided direct comment, but diplomats in Brussels said the dispute is being closely monitored, given the risk of further divisions at a time of economic uncertainty.
Bayrou’s remarks come at an especially delicate moment. On September 8, the National Assembly will vote on the no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition, which could topple his government. Bayrou, who no longer commands a solid majority, needs to secure support from Socialists and independents to reach the 287 votes required.
His economic plan, presented in July, foresees €44 billion in spending cuts, a freeze on expenditures, and reductions in the civil service, including the abolition of two public holidays. With a national debt of €3.3 trillion and a deficit at 5.4% of GDP—well above the 3% threshold set by Brussels—the prime minister defends these measures as essential to “restore France’s credibility.”
Political analysts say his chances of survival depend on winning over wavering Socialist and independent deputies. President Emmanuel Macron has publicly expressed his support, though he has also left open the possibility of dissolving the Assembly if the motion passes. Bayrou’s clash with Italy also comes as he faces strong opposition at home, with unions calling for nationwide strikes against his budget plan.
The dispute has therefore added to the political turmoil in Paris and risks complicating relations with a key EU partner.
Migrant-coddling makes France the sick man of Europe
By Monica Showalter
What happens when you run out of other people’s money?
In France, they are learning the hard way.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
PARIS—There is a country in the European Union saddled with a massive debt pile, rising borrowing costs and governments that collapse in a matter of months—and it’s not Italy.
France, rather, is sliding into a morass that once plagued its southern neighbor. If French Prime Minister François Bayrou loses a Sept. 8 confidence vote on his efforts to rein in the country’s budget deficit with 44 billion euros—roughly $51 billion—in cuts, he will become the fourth head of government to lose his job in a year and a half.
High turnover in the prime minister’s office was once rare in France, a cornerstone of Europe with a political system designed to foster stable governance. In recent years, however, France has entered a vicious cycle: Deteriorating public finances are fueling political fragmentation, which in turn prevents the nation from making hard choices about how to fix its fiscal mess.
Bayrou isn’t expected to survive the confidence vote, which would leave President Emmanuel Macron having to name a new prime minister to form the next government.
The Journal, in a separate piece, noted this:
In France, which hasn’t balanced its national budget in more than 50 years, government spending is around 57% of GDP, compared with 36% for the U.S. The state subsidizes everything from vacations to back-to-school equipment for children, and cities from Dunkirk to Montpellier have made public transit free for residents.
They just can’t stop spending — they’ve taken an entire storied nation and turned it into a blue-city spendathon, with free everything, because they can. More significantly, they have given millions of illegal aliens a free ride, with free health care, free housing, free education and free everything else sucking the country into bankruptcy.
Which is pretty pathetic for a country run by a former banker who presumably would know how to make hard decisions and balance books.
But it isn’t entirely his fault — the legislature, with its significant hard-left faction, insists on spending more on welfare, social services, and migrant freebies, amounting already to 65% of its entire government spending.
What’s 65% when you can have 75% — just like California’s blue city governments see it? It all got worse after the COVID spendathons, and as the Journal noted:
By then, France was in a deep hole. Debt went from €2.2 trillion before Macron was elected to €3.3 trillion, and economic growth flatlined. Macron refused to raise taxes, and he struggled to trim entitlements. He managed to raise the retirement age to 64 by 2030—for an estimated €17.7 billion in savings that year—but only after a bruising battle with opposition parties and widespread protests.
Last year, France was forced into a series of embarrassing corrections to its budget deficit. The national statistics agency widened France’s 2023 deficit to 5.5% of economic output, compared with the government’s forecast of 4.9%. Weeks later, the government had to revise its forecast for its deficit in 2024, raising it to 5.1% of economic output from 4.4%. Ratings firm S&P responded by downgrading France.
The Journal makes a brief mention of government spending on migrants as a problem with the “far right” but it moved on too quickly from that issue, seemingly viewing it as a boutique issue for one faction, when in fact, the far right, meaning, conservatives, are leading in all major polls across Europe, including France. Spending on free migrant health care is reportedly 1.2 billion euros. Free housing for migrants is 1 billion euros. A conservative leader in the lower house of the legislature, according to the Spectator, called for an actual audit of government spending on migrants and the left losts its mind.
James Tidmarsh writes at the Spectator:
The right-wing UDR group in the French parliament, led by Eric Ciotti, has called for a parliamentary commission to calculate the true cost of immigration. Ciotti is demanding a line-by-line accounting of France’s spending on healthcare, housing, education, and emergency aid for migrants, alongside their economic contributions. The French left recoiled instantly and predictably. To move the debate on, the Socialists tabled a no-confidence motion against the Bayrou government, ostensibly over pension reform, but widely seen as a bid to deflect Ciotti’s challenge. In Paris, few are fooled: immigration is the real flashpoint.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the far-left firebrand and founder of LFI, thundered that Bayrou must resist ‘the creeping Trumpism of public life.’ Mélenchon is deliberately missing the point. All the right is asking for at this point is a procedural commission. It would be sober and long overdue. But for the French left, the idea that immigration might be scrutinised like any other line of public spending is intolerable. Much easier to cry racism, scream Trump, and table a motion of no confidence to distract and shut the whole thing down. When something looks threatening, change the subject.
Ciotti’s proposal may be politically explosive, but it is also needed. France’s public finances are in crisis. The deficit stands at €154 billion, and the Bayrou government is scrambling to find €20 billion in immediate cuts just to satisfy Brussels. Voters are being told they must expect austerity. The question of what immigration costs, and what it brings in, is now being posed more forcefully than ever. France’s annual bill for state-funded healthcare for migrants is now over €1.2 billion. Emergency accommodation for asylum seekers and illegal migrants costs around €1 billion a year. Add to that the costs of education, unemployment, integration schemes, housing aid, child support, and criminal justice. The numbers aren’t exactly hidden, but they’re never being added up in one place. And that, of course, is the point.
Which gives a different flavor to the coming no-confidence vote. He makes a convincing case that migrant costs are out of control and taking France down the road to bankruptcy.
The panic now gripping the left is not really about the commission itself. It’s about what might follow. Because if the numbers are bad, the consensus begins to unravel. For years, think tanks have insisted that immigration is a net positive, citing GDP growth and demographic renewal. But these arguments are increasingly threadbare. France has among the lowest immigrant employment rates in Europe, and those in work are often concentrated in low-productivity sectors. Immigrants contribute little in taxes and draw heavily on expensive social services. A recent study by the Observatoire de l’immigration et de la démographie argued that immigration is a long-term fiscal burden, not a benefit at all. They conclude that immigrants leave the workforce earlier than previously assumed, and with much higher dependency needs.
That’s a disgusting fiscal picture, laying France low, making it the New Greece or New Italy in the Eurozone except that those countries have managed to get a grip and control their public spending.
France’s arrogant rulers thought they were not like those supposedly lazy Mediterranean countries baking in the sun. But in reality, France, with its huge social spending on migrants, might be even worse.
Bad things happen in France when the government goes bankrupt. Look up 1789. And with barbarians at the gate being let in on free rides, the formula for revolution looks well laid out even at this early date, particularly with the repression of the only party that wants to get a grip on migrant spending just by laying it out. The left refuses to lay it out, viewing it as a strictly moral issue, not a policy issue. It looks like the day of reckoning for Macron and the leftists he goes along with is now coming.
‘The AfD took my concerns seriously’ — Mother of Ukrainian teen murdered by Iraqi migrant in Germany demands justice
The mother of 16-year-old Liana K., who was killed after being pushed under a train in Friedland last month, has accused the German authorities of grave failures and warned that the suspect must not escape justice.
In an interview with Junge Freiheit, she said her family had been supported by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the local CDU mayor, while officials allowed a rejected asylum seeker to remain in the country and are, in part, responsible for her death.
Police suspect a 31-year-old Iraqi man of pushing Ukrainian-born Liana to her death. His asylum application had been rejected in December 2022 under the Dublin Regulation, with Lithuania deemed his point of entry into Europe and therefore responsible for processing any asylum application.
In February 2025, the Göttingen Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and issued an enforceable deportation order. Despite this, removal never happened.
In July 2025, immigration authorities even applied for deportation detention, but the Hanover District Court rejected the request, ruling the application flawed. Weeks later, Liana was dead.
The suspect has claimed he is schizophrenic and is currently being held in a psychiatric unit. There are concerns among Liana’s family that, as has been the case with several asylum seekers who have committed criminal acts in Europe, he could avoid prison time due to his mental illness and be declared not criminally responsible for his actions.
Her mother rejected the idea that the suspect could be declared unfit to stand trial because of schizophrenia. “I’m sure he’ll escape punishment. After a ‘recovery’ in a psychiatric hospital, he can continue living without remorse and commit new crimes — knowing that next time he’ll just have to pretend to be mentally ill again.”
She recalled how police at first described the incident as an accident or suicide, a version she never believed. “Liana lived for the future. She had big goals and plans for her life,” she said. Her daughter had begun training as a dental assistant, played piano, and helped raise her younger brothers after the family fled Mariupol in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She also pointed to the lack of CCTV at Friedland station, calling for cameras to be installed to help deter and solve future crimes.
Seeking answers, she turned to politicians. “I didn’t care which party listened to my concerns — what mattered was that I wasn’t left out in the cold. The AfD opened the door to me, listened to me, took my concerns seriously, and continues to support us to this day,” she said, also thanking the CDU and Geisleden’s mayor, Markus Janitzk,i for organizing a fundraising appeal to pay for Liana’s funeral.
“The police may have caught the suspect, but the perpetrator should not be committed to a psychiatric hospital or simply sent back to his home country. I want him to be remanded in custody and serve his sentence. I want justice,” she added.
BELGIUM: Muslim Mayor of Molenbeek says “anyone who refuses to accept Islam in this country, should leave”
Specifically, all the non-Muslim Belgians who object to the creeping Islamization of their country.
Saliha Raiss, a politician from Molenbeek, wants a Europe without Europeans: "Anyone who doesn't accept veiled women, anyone who doesn't accept Islam in Belgium, can leave!" This is Islam. pic.twitter.com/uvYJbwaHho
— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) August 31, 2025
Our ruling class want ‘global citizenship’ to replace national identity
We are witnessing something unprecedented in human history: A civilisation’s ruling class systematically undermining the very foundations that made their prosperity possible. From the streets of Paris where anti-Western protesters wave Palestinian flags while condemning their own nation, to the halls of academia where “global citizenship” has replaced national identity, Western elites have declared war on their own culture. At my former employer, Webster University, students are required to take courses in something called the “Global Citizenship Program.” The very concept assumes that traditional attachments to place, culture, and national identity are outdated impediments to human progress.
Yet this cosmopolitan ideal serves primarily those wealthy enough to live anywhere while imposing costs on everyone else. The regional farmer or factory worker cannot afford to be a “citizen of the world” when globalist policies destroy his livelihood. The suburban parent cannot embrace borderless ideology when it undermines the safety and stability of her community.
Perhaps nowhere is this elite manipulation more evident than in the systematic suppression of legitimate political discourse. In Germany, we have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of established political parties maintaining what they euphemistically call a “firewall” against the Alternative for Germany (AfD), effectively an elite agreement to exclude millions of voters from democratic representation. This betrayal manifests in policies that prioritise ideological purity over practical reality. So called NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that depend almost entirely on the state are a simulation of civil society, presenting viewpoints that a majority of the people reject.
Nowhere is this elite detachment more glaring than in the realm of migration policy, where open borders are pursued with a fervour that dismisses public concerns. In Germany, mainstream parties have forged a “Cologne immigration pact,” an agreement among all parties except the AfD not to speak ill of migrants and mass migration in general. The pact specifically prohibits linking migrants to “negative social developments such as unemployment or threats to domestic security.” This pact, by tampering with democratic discourse, not only alienates voters but also opens the door wider for ever more radical alternatives, as it fails to address the real strains on social services, housing, and cultural cohesion caused by unchecked inflows. Instead of addressing problems, they are being excluded from debate. When political parties coalesce around the idea of ignoring the topics that are the most important for a significant share of the electorate, we have effectively ended democracy as it was intended: To allow for the open discussion of policies, not the ignoring of failed ones.
The weaponisation of administrative power to eliminate political opponents has reached new extremes in the city of Ludwigshafen, where AfD politician Joachim Paul was banned from running for mayor by an election committee chaired by his main rival, incumbent mayor Jutta Steinruck. The pretext for this democratic coup was a dossier compiled by Germany’s domestic intelligence service, which cited among its evidence Paul’s positive commentary on Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, specifically his observation that the protagonists “fight for a cause greater than themselves: Their homeland, the survival of their culture, a just order, the defence against a global threat.” Other “threatening” activities included organising a book fair where antiquarian books were sold, offering online seminars on the medieval Nibelungenlied, and using the term “remigration” to describe the return of non-integrated migrants. The election committee voted 6-1 to exclude Paul, with representatives from CDU, SPD, and Free Voters participating in what amounts to a pre-emptive coup against Germany’s second-largest party in the city. When Paul’s legal challenge reached the Administrative Court, judges dismissed his appeal not on legal grounds but for “electoral stability.” In other words, democracy must be suspended to protect democracy. This Kafkaesque episode represents the logical endpoint of the “firewall” strategy: When political exclusion through coalition-building fails, the state simply removes candidates from the ballot entirely.
Across the Channel in the UK, a similar pattern unfolds with the migrant hotel crisis in Epping. Local residents’ safety concerns were overridden when the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court injunction, allowing asylum seekers to remain housed at a local hotel despite protests and warnings from police about potential unrest. A Cabinet minister even declared that the rights of migrants “trump” those of the Epping community, exemplifying how elites impose burdensome policies on ordinary people while remaining distant from the consequences. Such decisions fuel resentment and anger, and it is only a matter of time before someone will put fire to the powder keg.
The solution requires fighting on two fronts. We must expose elite hypocrisy while simultaneously offering substantive alternatives to the spiritual void they’ve created. This means defending the institutions—family, nation, faith—that provide meaning beyond mere material comfort. It means pointing out the absurdity of policies that privilege abstract ideology over concrete human flourishing. Most importantly, we must stop being intimidated by accusations of extremism when defending positions that were considered common sense just decades ago. When supporting national borders, questioning gender ideology for children, or defending Western civilisation itself is labelled “far-right,” the problem lies not with these positions but with a political spectrum that has shifted so dramatically leftward that ordinary human wisdom appears radical.
The intellectual class may be bored with the civilisation that created them, but the rest of us cannot afford their luxury beliefs. Whether it’s the German political establishment’s conspiracy of silence on migration or the British government’s imposition of unwanted asylum hotels on local communities, the pattern is clear: Elites impose policies that serve their psychological needs while ordinary people pay the price.
It’s time to choose civilisation over ideology, substance over style, and the hard-won wisdom of our ancestors over the fashionable nihilism of our elites. The residents of Epping, the voters excluded by Germany’s “firewall” and countless others across the West deserve better than to be sacrificed on the altar of elite self-satisfaction.
New studies provide ‘irrefutable’ grounds for immediate withdrawal of COVID-19 mRNA shots
Three recent peer-reviewed studies, including two published this week, provide “IRREFUTABLE Grounds for Immediate Market Withdrawal of COVID-19 mRNA Injections,” according to a leading expert on the dangers of mRNA vaccines.
“Two MAJOR papers were just published in the past 48 hours, building directly on our recent landmark study,” wrote Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation.
“Together, the international evidence has converged: mRNA injections are unsafe, ineffective, contaminated, and in violation of international law,” Hulscher said.
One study published this week, “COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages, a Non-Exhaustive Conclusion,” found that the injections contain engineered elements in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention. The study found that the COVID-19 jabs had damaging effects on recipients’ cardiovascular, reproductive, and immune systems:
- Cardiovascular system: strong links to myocarditis, heart attacks, strokes, and arrhythmias
- Reproductive system: high rates of pregnancy loss, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths
- Immune system: collapse marked by viral reactivation, autoimmune disease, and cancer acceleration
The second study published this week, “Regulatory and Safety Assessment of COVID-19 mRNA-LNP Genetic Vaccines in Japan: Evidence for Revocation of Approval and Market Withdrawal,” noted that 103 million people in that country were injected without any nationwide safety investigation or long-term monitoring.
Researchers concluded that the COVID-19 shots were “misclassified as ‘vaccines’ rather than gene therapy products, allowing the product to bypass stricter regulatory standards.
“Critical studies (were) never conducted,” according to the study authors, who documented legal and ethical breaches, including concealment of harms, suppression of mortality data, and approvals granted without clinical trials.
The two new studies confirm a report earlier this year produced by Hulscher, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, and Dr. Peter McCullough, published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, that claimed risks from COVID-19 vaccines “far outweigh theoretical benefits.”
“COVID-19 vaccination campaigns around the globe have failed to meet fundamental standards of safety and efficacy, leading to mounting evidence of significant harm,” the researchers explained.
More than 81,000 physicians, scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professional public health and physician organizations have demanded withdrawal of the COVID-19 vaccines from the market.
The total number of COVID-19 vaccine deaths reported to VAERS-adjusted deaths exceeds 589,000 in the U.S. and 17 million around the globe.
“Together, these three studies converge on the same conclusion: Immediate global withdrawal of COVID-19 mRNA injections is essential to prevent further loss of life,” Hulscher declared on X.
“Now is the time to stand on the right side of history – or be remembered by future generations as complicit in one of the greatest tragedies of our time,” he added.