A primary school in the Leopoldstadt district of Vienna is celebrating the Islamic Ramadan next Tuesday and all pupils are expected to take part. Parents are particularly upset that the same school does not celebrate Christmas. School attendance is compulsory on that day, as the school management informed parents in a letter. Anyone who does not want to send their children to school should discuss this in advance with the ‘class teacher’. The father of one of the pupils noted that although the end of Ramadan, the so-called breaking of the fast, is now being celebrated, there was no Christmas celebration at school. The child is also said to have mentioned several times that his classmates often hardly speak any German. Some are even said to only speak Arabic, which is why an Arabic-speaking teacher has to take part in the lessons. The Vienna Education Directorate told heute.at that the Ramadan celebration was a voluntary event that would last a maximum of ten to 15 minutes. Pupils who do not want to take part in the Muslim festival do not have to.
A Kosovar migrant murdered his own wife in the commune of Gray in northeastern France in August 2004 by stabbing her to death. The prosecution’s lawyer described the killing by saying that the migrant had “killed her like you would kill a sheep.” Now, the Kosovar is back on French soil and has allegedly been threatening to repeat the same crime with his new wife.
The migrant, who was 44 at the time of the murder, was sentenced to 20 years in prison in January 2007. In the end, he only served 15. After his release, he was deported back to Kosovo and banned from returning to France.
The story doesn’t end there, however. The same man, whose name has not been reported in the media, was introduced to another woman by a mutual acquaintance through an exchange of letters in 2018. The woman, who was divorced with four children, is from the same village in Kosovo, although she was by then living in the town of Montbéliard, also in northeastern France. She ended up returning to Kosovo temporarily in order to marry the convicted murderer only a month after they were introduced, despite knowing of his criminal record.
Although the newlyweds were originally forced to have a solely long-distance relationship, the husband managed to illegally reenter France at the beginning of 2020 in order to join his wife.
According to the newspaper L’Est Républicain, he soon began drinking heavily and became both verbally and physically violent, threatening to do the same as he had done with his previous wife, among other threats.
He eventually threatened to kill one of his spouse’s children, and his wife notified the authorities. A court sentenced him to another year in prison in 2022 for this offense, after which he was again deported back to Kosovo.
The determined migrant once again managed to reenter France illegally in 2023 and made amends with his wife, moving back in with her. It wasn’t long before he returned to his old ways, however, and his wife again reported him to the police in August 2023. The husband had disappeared by the time officers responded, and managed to escape back to Kosovo.
The husband once again managed to enter France illegally in the summer of 2024 and moved back into his wife’s home. She said nothing to the authorities, however, wanting to give her spouse a chance at reconciliation. The situation nevertheless did not improve.
According to Le Parisien, the husband has been accused of telling his wife in great detail how he was going to torture her before killing her, saying that he was going to make sure that she died slowly. On Friday of last week, he allegedly threatened to burn both her and one of her sons to death; his wife, now 50, called the police yet again. When officers arrived at the scene, they found the husband so drunk as to be nearly unconscious after having polished off two whole bottles of whiskey.
The migrant, who is now 65, is still in police custody. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted due to his criminal history. He has denied all of the accusations and claims that his family is lying as part of a plot against him.
If found guilty, this Kosovar migrant will again be deported – but given the ease with which he has returned three times before, it seems entirely possible that this tragic story has still not ended.
The case is the latest illustration of France’s broken immigration and deportation system, which allows repeat offenders to either remain on its territory or simply keep coming back.
Support and call for the release of Boualem Sansal in France (February 2025). Wikimedia Commons , Guallendra, CC-Zero
Following an unfair trial, the author Boualem Sansal was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment—a decision that further exacerbates diplomatic tensions between France and Algeria. He was arrested in November 2024 by the Algerian authorities, upon arrival from France.
The Franco-Algerian writer, known for denouncing the grip of Islamism on French society, was accused of “undermining the integrity of Algerian territory” for having supported, in the right-wing publication Frontières, the position that Moroccan territory had been amputated for the benefit of Algeria under French colonization. He was also accused of “colluding with foreign parties” for having repeatedly exchanged views with French ambassadors.
Aged 75, he was detained for more than four months before being subjected to a farcical trial. He was refused the opportunity to choose his own lawyer on the grounds that his own, François Zimeray, was Jewish. The hearing lasted no more than 20 minutes.
The prosecutor had requested a sentence of 10 years; he ended up being sentenced to ‘only’ five years—which is still a very severe sentence considering the writer’s age and his very poor health. Sansal is suffering from an advanced stage of cancer. His family and his support committee are concerned that this situation could be seen as a slow death sentence, given the conditions of his detention.
This is also the view of Marine Le Pen, whose voice rose on X in protest at the verdict:
The scandalous conviction of Boualem Sansal is in reality, given his age and state of health, a life sentence. It will remain an indelible stain on the Algerian regime. In reality, Boualem Sansal is a hostage of the Algerian regime, which is using him to make France yield.
Sansal’s lawyer has appealed to President Tebboune and called on his sense of humanity—if not justice—to free Sansal.
During a press conference at the end of the Ukraine summit, President Macron called on the “highest Algerian authorities” to make “humane and humanitarian” decisions regarding the Franco-Algerian writer and to “give him back his freedom.” “I know I can count on both the common sense and the humanity of the Algerian authorities to make such a decision,” added the President of the Republic. It is not certain that the terms ‘common sense’ and ‘humanity’ are the ones that best describe the current Algerian government.
In France, the verdict sparked indignation on the Right and the Left. Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal affirmed that through Sansal, it was France itself and its values that were targeted. The far-left MP and head of the parliamentary group of La France Insoumise (LFI) Mathilde Panot also came to Sansal’s defense, while pointing out that he should not be “exploited by the far right.” The Left has indeed always shown a certain reluctance to defend Boualem Sansal, whose uncompromising criticism of the excesses of Islam it condemns. In January, a resolution in support of the writer was passed in the European Parliament, without the votes of nine LFI MEPs.
On today’s #NCFWhittle we speak with Ben Woods, the Waitrose employee who was fired for tweets he posted on his private X account, an account that had no official connection to his employer.
Concerns over the breakdown of social cohesion, increasing violence, and the rise of Islamism have reached an “unprecedented level” in France, according to a survey which found over four in ten believe the country is heading towards civil war.
A survey from Ifop published in Le Figaro to coincide with the 120th anniversary of the passing of the Secularism Act of 1905 and the 10th anniversary of the Bataclan Islamist terror attacks in Paris in 2015, has found that the French public is increasingly sceptical of the multicultural project foisted upon the nation, with many fearing that their society may devolve into full-on chaos.
According to the poll, a record eight in ten people in France believe the country is at risk of experiencing a “social explosion” in the coming months.
While the “explosion” could come in the form of riots such as the ones experienced in 2023 following the police killing of an Algerian-heritage teen, or like the Yellow Vest or farmers’ protest movements, a staggering 42 per cent are concerned that it could come in the form of an outright civil war. The survey also found 39 per cent could envision an attack on the Élysée Palace (the residence of the French president) or the National Assembly.
In any event, the French public appears to be losing faith in their public institutions’ ability to withstand the growing turmoil, with six in ten expressing doubt over the government’s ability to maintain stability in the country. This comes as the National Assembly remains mired in a three-way split and in the wake of three governments collapsing since the start of last year.
One of the key drivers of the growing feeling of instability found by the survey was the spread of Islamist ideology throughout France. The poll found that 72 per cent were concerned about growing Islamism in working-class neighbourhoods, 70 per cent about it in prisons, 63 per cent in schools, 56 per cent in universities, and 52 per cent in sports clubs.
Islam in general was by far seen as the religion most likely to harbour radical positions at 63 per cent, compared to Judaism at 23 per cent and Catholicism at 16 per cent.
While the public was mostly tolerant towards some practices of the Muslim faith, such as praying five times a day and abstaining from alcohol, others, such as forcing young girls to wear veils or refusing to shake the hand of a person of the opposite sex, are seen as signs of radicalisation.
Other major factors seen as contributing to the breakdown in social cohesion surrounded issues of multiculturalism, with 88 per cent citing the “evolution of delinquency” on the streets of France, 82 per cent the “concentration of populations of the same culture or origin in neighbourhoods,” and 75 per cent pointing to the public spaces becoming “occupied by religions”. Outside of multiculturalism, only income inequality, at 77 per ent, was seen as playing a meaningful role in the cultural decay.
The growing concern over Islamism and multiculturalism appears to be having an impact on the political sphere. According to the survey, over eight in ten see the far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) party of Jean-Luc Mélenchon as contributing to societal divisions.
Perhaps influencing this perception, supporters of the LFI, which has been an outspoken proponent of Gaza in the conflict with Israel, were the most likely to hold a positive perspective on radical Islam, with 36 per cent saying they would support Islamism.
Conversely, while the legacy media and the political establishment have long attempted to deride the National Rally as divisive and outside the bounds of acceptable politics, 39 percent of the public now sees Marine Le Pen’s anti-mass migration party as beneficial to France’s cohesion.
The Paris Climate Agreement was flawed; doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties to it and the media to acknowledge this fact.
The mainstream media have bemoaned the Paris Agreement’s fate since Donald Trump’s reelection. Trump took the United States out of the Paris Agreement during his first term, and vowed to do so again after President Biden put America back into the agreement. While Trump withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement was a visible and public rebuke of the pact, undermining its “effectiveness,” in point of fact, the agreement was dead even before the ink of the last signature on it was dry.
Physics, economic, and social realities on the ground, and the structure of the treaty itself ensured that the Paris Agreement would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.
As I noted shortly after the time of its completion in 2015, even those who developed the agreement at the time quietly acknowledged that emission reduction pledges made by the signatory countries would be insufficient to keep temperatures below the 2.0℃ threshold. By their accounting at the time, if every party to the agreement actually cut emissions by the amount they agreed to, it would result in less than half the greenhouse gas cuts required to halt temperatures at the upper limit of 2.0 degrees. By 2017, the UN reported that even if every country abides by its Paris commitments, a dubious proposition at best, temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100.
Also dooming the Paris Agreement is the fact, as reported by the BBC, that a number of countries are openly discussing not keeping their commitments. Mind you, those same countries have failed to keep their commitments so far, but now they are openly conversing about it. Argentina, Indonesia (a top 10 global CO2 emitter), South Africa (Africa’s largest emitter), and South Korea, among other countries supposedly committed to reining in fossil fuel use and cutting their emissions, are now openly saying they will increase production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Moreover, they hope to import those products from the United States.
They are blaming Trump for their decision, but the data show that every single country now saying they want more fossil fuels was, in fact, increasing its use of fossil fuels long before Trump was reelected and pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement. In fact, no country that set specific targets for emission reductions in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.
Further evidence the Paris Agreement is dead has been reported by Yahoonews.com. Of the nearly 200 countries that signed the Paris agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline. That makes 190 scofflaws. Also, even those 10 have failed to meet their previous carbon reduction commitments.
It also bears noting that two of the three biggest carbon dioxide emitters in the world, China and India, have no firm commitments under the Paris Agreement. Rather than promising to cut emissions, they vaguely said that they expect at some point in the future to see their emissions peak. If CO2 emissions are driving climate change, China’s emissions trajectory — which has grown steadily since 2015 — would ensure more atmospheric CO2 in 2030 and 2050, regardless of what the rest of the world did or did not do.
Another compelling reason that the Paris Agreement was bound to fail was aptly described by philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” That describes each and every climate agreement developed thus far, in a nutshell.
The Paris Agreement was never a binding treaty. Under its terms, the nearly 200 nations that signed were supposed to set individualized targets to reduce or cap carbon dioxide emissions. However, none of those goals, or even the commitment to set such goals, was enforceable internationally. Unless and until the individual countries actually enact the targets through domestic law, they aren’t even binding within the legal system of any individual country.
In the end, the Paris Agreement requires sacrifice, sustained and deep sacrifice, for no discernable gain. Politicians want to stay in power and are loathe to stay a policy course that visibly harms their constituents for payoffs decades after they are out of office. That is the main, realpolitik reason the Paris Climate Agreement was doomed from day one. Now is the time to speak its eulogy, without regret. The trillions of dollars wasted to date on it are sunk costs, but at least we can now cease throwing good money after bad.
Medical murder comes for the disabled children. Again.
I mean, we’ve been here before, but for some reason, a sizable enough portion of the population refuses to heed the words commonly attributed to Spanish thinker, George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and so we traditionalists, “clinging to” (as Barack Obama might derogatorily say) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are left to scream into the void about how today it’s the retarded kids, tomorrow it’s us.
Jonathon Van Maren’s new report at Life News reveals that in 2024, the Netherlands put 219 people to death, based on “psychological suffering” of the individual. For reference, this was a 10,850% increase over the previous 14 years. Thirty of those lives, or around 14%, belonged to either very young, or relatively young people.
It gets worse, though, from UnHerd’s Yuan Yi Zhu: “An unspecified number of minors were also euthanised.” The one specific given is that one of the minors, a teenage boy, was euthanized over his autism.
Now, to recall your attention back to 1930s Germany, from the testimony (via abortion: the SILENT HOLOCAUST) of a Sister Rutilia, a nun whose religious order was tasked to care for physically and mentally disabled children:
[O]ne day we heard that the government was planning to take them [the children] away and to kill them, just because they were retarded or handicapped. At first we could not believe this, but we prayed anyway. Oh, how we prayed for our children! But one day the vans came and soldiers took away our little babies. They threw them into the vans like sacks of potatoes and took them off to the ‘killing centers.’
Here’s some incredible, and utterly tragic, irony: the Dutch doctors of the 1930s were the first line of resistance when the Third Reich invaded:
[W]hen the Reich Commander for the Occupied Netherlands Territories invited Dutch physicians to rehabilitate people for the sole purpose of putting them to forced labor, the Dutch doctors adamantly refused. They knew it would be the first, slight step away from principle and medical ethics. They were men in the service of men. They would not treat human beings like pawns. When these Dutch physicians were threatened with revocation of their licenses, they simply mailed in their licenses and took down their shingles. Even when the Reich Commander had one hundred Dutch doctors arrested and sent to concentration camps, the whole Dutch medical profession continued to stand firm [emphasis added].
Was all the courage and sacrifice made in vain? What happened to that spirit? Hegelianism, leftism, and “progress,” that’s what.
As governments continue to sanitize the world of the indesirables—how many times have we seen this now?—seems like we’re the only ones paying attention, signaling like the canary in the coalmine about what this means for the rest of humanity, and where it’s going next.
The suspect of a stabbing incident on the Sint Nicolaasstraat in Amsterdam on Thursday was arrested after he had been detained by a good samaritan. The suspect is currently being taken to the hospital with an injury to the leg as a result of the arrest, police have reported on X. Five people were critically injured as a result of the stabbing, including two who were severely hurt, police said. There have been no updates on their condition.
“Not four but five people were injured. In addition, the suspect also sustained injuries,” police said on X. Authorities have not yet shared anything about the suspect’s motive, but justice minister David van Weel said terrorism has not been excluded.
screengrab youtube
The incident unfolded just after 3:15 p.m. when witnesses say two people were stabbed on Sint Nicolaasstraat. The two victims appeared to be an older man and a younger man in his early 20s, according to Parool.
Moments later, The attacker moved towards the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, where he stabbed a young woman in her mid 20s in the back in front of the store Dutch Quilts. The store is located at the intersection of the two streets.
The last stabbing occured on the sunny patio in front of the 3 Fleschjes cafe on the Gravenstraat. The fourth woman, who witnesses said was of an older age, was also stabbed in the back, a bar employee told Parool. Security footage from the area shows the suspect running off as bystanders chased after him.
Witnesses described the events to media outlets at the scene saying the stabbings appeared to be random in nature. The assailant was not heard shouting any politically or religiously motivated slogans, according to NOS. In fact, witnesses did not hear him utter anything out loud.
The suspect in the case made his way towards the H&M on the Nieuwendijk shopping street, at which point, a good samaritan tackled the individual. A woman at the scene said the bystander then sat on the suspect at the intersection with Valkensteeg and pinned him on the ground until police arrived and took him into custody.
“He looked normal. Middle aged, but it went very fast. I did not see much more than that,” the woman told Parool.
A video of the arrest obtained by AT5 showed the suspect being brought under control by one police officer as another arrived to provide assistance. Police said the man’s leg was injured in the struggle with the good samaritan.
He was also taken to an area hospital, police confirmed. He did not appear to resist arrest.
investigators were still working from a command post set up at Dam Square, hours after the violence took place.
Trust in Germany’s political establishment is not just waning—it is collapsing. Friedrich Merz, poised to become Germany’s next chancellor, has achieved the remarkable feat of being called a liar before he has even been officially appointed by parliament.
A recent poll provides a damning indictment of his political manoeuvring: 73% of respondents—including 44% of his own CDU supporters—believe he has deceived voters. In eastern Germany, entire local CDU associations have resigned from the party, with one group’s letter of resignation capturing the raw sentiment: “We feel betrayed by you and look to Germany’s future with even more trepidation than during the previous coalition.”
This level of disillusionment is unprecedented in post-war German politics. It stems from a technocratic style of government that is fundamentally bankrupt—devoid of vision and principle, and driven by a singular obsession: to suppress populist challenges.
Calling Merz a liar may seem harsh because, in truth, he has never hidden his authoritarian anti-populist stance. Although he has presented himself as something of an anti-establishment rebel, opposing the green-left consensus that has governed the country so poorly in recent years, he has consistently been committed to excluding the right-populist AfD.
Last October, he brazenly declared: “There is no longer a left-wing majority in Germany, but a theoretical right-of-centre majority. But we say quite clearly: we will not cooperate with the AfD. If you want a change of course, you have to vote for the CDU and CSU”.
Unsurprisingly, this strategic attempt to win back disgruntled populist voters by promising their exclusion backfired spectacularly. In the February election, Merz’s CDU scraped into first place with a meagre 28.5% of the vote, while the ‘hated’ AfD doubled its share to 20%. Instead of securing a comfortable majority, Merz found himself desperately seeking a coalition partner. Standing by his earlier pledge to rule out any cooperation with the AfD, Merz quickly announced a coalition with the SPD—the former governing party that had lost the election so spectacularly.
Since then, his political manoeuvring has revealed a stark disconnect between campaign promises and post-election realities. On the campaign trail, he promised a ‘180-degree turn’ on asylum policy and permanent border controls in response to a series of deadly attacks, many committed by rejected asylum seekers. But almost immediately after the election, his rhetoric shifted dramatically: “None of us are talking about closing the borders. Nobody! Even if that was perhaps claimed at times during the election campaign. But none of us want to close the borders,” he trumpeted.
When confronted with the possibility of having misled voters, Merz resorted to semantic gymnastics. Fact-checkers rushed to his defence, arguing that he had only promised to ‘’secure’ the German border, not to ‘close’ it—a distinction that has done little to quell growing voter frustration.
The true depth of Merz’s political expediency was revealed in his approach to defence and debt reform. During the election campaign, he positioned himself as a staunch advocate of fiscal austerity and of Germany’s constitutional ‘debt brake.’ In February, just after the elections, he still declared emphatically: “It is out of the question that we will reform the debt brake in the near future.” Yet in early March, he pushed through a law to borrow billions to boost Germany’s crumbling infrastructure and its failing army, using a strategy that has raised serious questions about his understanding of democratic representation.
His tactical maneuver was calculated and controversial. Knowing that the AfD and the Left Party—significant electoral gainers—would oppose his plans, Merz chose to rush the vote through the outgoing parliament before the new parliament convened on March 25th. The result was a legislative sleight of hand: MPs who had lost electoral support were able to decide on far-reaching changes while newly elected representatives were summarily excluded.
In his eagerness to win the support of the Greens—which he also needed for his two-thirds majority—to reform the debt brake, Merz went even further. He agreed to allocate billions to a climate fund and pushed through a commitment to make Germany carbon neutral by 2045, enshrining the goal in the constitution.
All this has made a mockery of the voters’ desire for change. Merz’s approach is also not without historical irony. Arguments over the debt brake had previously led to the collapse of the despised coalition led by Olaf Scholz (SPD). In the autumn of 2023, Germany’s highest court had blocked attempts to circumvent the brake and use COVID-19 emergency funds to plug budget gaps—a ruling that Merz and his CDU had enthusiastically supported at the time.
It has become very clear that Merz will do everything to uphold the old status quo. He is not the force for change that many had hoped for. Pleasing his potential coalition partner has taken precedence over satisfying voters’ will—even the will of his own CDU voters.
Economically, Merz is counting on the stimulus of new debt. He hopes that there will be substantial financial investment that will boost the German economy. He may also be speculating that voter anger will dissipate before the next election cycle. Given that many of Germany’s problems are in fact structural, it is more than doubtful that this strategy will succeed.
But it’s the wider implications that are most worrying. The German establishment seems to have reached a point where, in its quest to combat populism, maintaining the facade of democratic responsiveness is no longer even deemed necessary. The question remains: How far will they go to marginalize and combat populist sentiments?
