Church of Montenach, France. Built between 1884 and 1886, it survived two world wars and was devastated by a fire on Sunday.
The numbers, cold as gravestones, speak clearly: dozens of churches are destroyed by fire every year, while other places of worship enjoy an inexplicable immunity. These are not meteorological accidents or random electrical faults. It is a pattern that challenges our ability to name reality without euphemisms.
The elites in Paris and Brussels, barricaded in their intellectual salons, prefer not to see, but the citizen smells the acrid odor of a planned dissolution.
According to the Observatory for Religious Heritage, founded in 2006 to safeguard France’s religious patrimony, in 2023, 27 churches were burned. In 2024, there were 26 church fires. Data for 2025 will be published in May or June.
Churches and synagogues burn, mosques do not.
In Quebec, three churches were burned in three weeks.
Meanwhile, in Barcelona, a young woman was brutally stabbed to death while the attacker shouted “Allahu Akbar” on a crowded street in Esplugues de Llobregat. Spanish socialist prime minister Pedro Sánchez has granted citizenship to 500,000 people, so we should expect more scenes resembling civil war in the streets.
Then more stabbings in Barcelona in the same hours.
If you have not read this news in major newspapers, ask yourself whether “freedom of the press” really exists and whether mainstream journalism is worth saving.
Those stabbed to death in Barcelona did not deserve even a single line in newspapers: they are not media figures like the spoiled Western children who boarded yet another flotilla for Gaza (and for Hamas).
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, in Loosdrecht, on the shores of the lake of the same name, in a town only slightly larger than Montenach, a popular revolt broke out after the municipal building was requisitioned to house about a hundred young African men.
Women are on the front line in the battle “for the safety of their daughters.” Loosdrecht, about thirty kilometers south of Amsterdam, has seen its town hall designated to host young African males. The name Lisa was on everyone’s lips: this 17-year-old girl murdered last summer while cycling home in a village near Amsterdam. A Nigerian asylum seeker, housed in a reception center, confessed to the murder as well as to rape.
Every civilized society has regulated access to female space with rituals, taboos, and boundaries. Tearing them down in the name of “diversity” means inviting chaos. And that is exactly what we are doing. Congratulations!
The women of Loosdrecht know this without needing sociological roundtables. They know that forced mixing between local teenagers and Africans generates violence, not harmony. And they say it openly, without asking permission from the guardians of orthodoxy.
This Dutch village, nestled among the waters of the lake, is no longer an idyll of canals and green fields: it has become the stage of a revolt that Europe’s comfortable salons would like to label as obscurantism, but which instead reveals the naked anthropological truth of every human community.
Elites may continue to lecture about “diversity,” but ordinary citizens, those who pay taxes and live in reality, remember a basic truth: a society works when those who arrive accept that they must conform to the existing pact and not demand to overturn it.
A civilization dies not only through external conquest, but when it stops loving itself.
That is why I am proud of these people who protest. Because they want to protect themselves and their families. They are the “common man” to whom I dedicated the last chapter of my new book, “Titanic Europe”.
Because only those who dare to name reality can still hope to save it.
Peripheral Europe is not dead yet. And it warms the heart to see it rebel against a predetermined fate. Whether it can still save Europe remains to be seen. One must hope so, or all that will be left is to pack our bags, as English Jews are doing at this very moment.
A Labour-run council in Scotland will soon be opening a temporary accommodation site which could be used to house homeless migrants, despite being less than a five-minute walk from a primary school.
The City of Edinburgh Council has proposed to transform the defunct Northfield House Hotel as a building to tackle homelessness in the Scottish capital.
Northfield House Hotel site in conjunction to its proximity to schools and nurseries in the area (all within a 0.3 mile radius) | GOOGLE MAPS
Located in the leafy suburb of Gilmerton, the new accommodation is projected to have 100 self-contained flats which will be used to house homeless people, who are mainly single males, The Telegraph reports.
The local authority has insisted the building will not be used to house asylum seekers.
However, in accordance with legal obligations local authorities are subject to, people who have been granted asylum could be housed there.
Scottish policy states if “you have settled status or indefinite leave to remain” or “you’ve been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection”, you “have the right to homeless help”, according to Shelter Scotland.
Refugee homeless households rose from 1,955 to 3,020 between April to September 2024 and the same period in 2025 – a 54 per cent increase year-on-year, according to the Scottish Government.
This makes up of 16 per cent of all homelessness applications in Scotland.
In January, Ian Murray MSP for Edinburgh South took to social media to inform his constituents on the development, advising the accommodation will be for people “classed as homeless”.
He wrote on Facebook: “The Council will take over ownership of the building on completion to provide accommodation for people who are officially classed as homeless.”
Mr Murray continued, writing the accommodation “will not be used” to “house people who are seeking asylum”.
“They have also said that the site will NOT be used as a secure residential unit to house prisoners or young offenders; a custody or short-term holding centre; or accommodation to house people who are seeking asylum, a matter which is managed by the Home Office, not local councils.”
He continued: “The council has assured me there will be at least 2 members of staff onsite 24/7, 365 days a year.
“They plan to hold an open day prior to opening so that local residents can meet the staff and ask any questions they may have.”
The accommodation is expected to open at the end of May.
Residents in the area have voiced their concerns for the accommodation, particularly due to its close proximity to schools and nurseries in the area.
Carebears Children’s Nursery is 262ft away from the building, Little Learners Nursery is 0.2 miles away, as well as Kaimes Special School and Gracemount Primary.
Slightly further away, within a 0.3-mile radius of the temporary accommodation, are St Catherine’s Primary School and Gracemount High School.
When the council applied for the building to be temporary housing for homeless people, 93 per cent of those who commented said they did not want the proposal to go ahead.
One resident weighed in on the debate that sparked in the comments section of Mr Murray’s Facebook post, writing: “I absolutely don’t like this idea as I have to commute at strange times directly across the road.
“Super unhappy about the fact that there is a need to mention that there will be security guards on site at all times.”
Another person commented: “Having security guards is useless. They can only manage what happens inside the building – there is no way for them to control what happens outside.”
After the Scottish National Party ditched rules which meant individuals had to have a “local connection” to the place where they want to be housed, councils are having to provide more temporary accommodation to asylum seekers.
The legislation, passed in November 2022, meant that councils could not refer a homeless applicant to another council on the basis that they did not have a connection to their area.
An Edinburgh council spokesman said: “This temporary accommodation is one of the many actions we’re taking to tackle our housing emergency in Edinburgh.
“To be absolutely clear, this site will not be used to house people awaiting a decision on their asylum status – this is a matter managed by the Home Office, not the Council.
“Everyone placed there will have presented as homeless in Edinburgh, received a full homeless assessment, and are entitled to council services and support.”
The battle lines for the preservation of Western civilization were drawn long before the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004. The double-dealing actions of many European leaders have been endlessly on display for all to see.
Now, both the US and Israel — in their quest to stop the indefatigable enemies of the West and maintain free trade, democracy, and military deterrence against these predators — may have found themselves thwarted. By whom? By their “allies,” no less: Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
These nations, along with Norway, Denmark, Slovenia and Canada, have imposed sanctions, restrictions, and punitive measures of various sorts against Israel during its efforts to defend itself — and them! — against enemies of civilization and the West. The threat, with ballistic missiles, was to come from Iran, about to achieve nuclear weapons capability in two weeks or less, as well as from the regime’s proxy jihadist forces, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
Similar measures, designed to frustrate the Israel-America coalition against an openly predatory Iran, seem to have arisen from two main sources. The first has been the anti-democratic influence of Islam in the domestic affairs of Western Europe; the second, from a deep-seated anti-Semitic doctrine in Europe, now more present than ever – and being strongly reinforced.
Jews have been unwelcome wherever they were since the time of the Pharaohs 4,000 years ago. Jews have been expelled by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, the Romans in 136 CE, the English in 1290, the French in 1306, and the Spanish in 1492.
Since the atrocities of the Holocaust in the 1940s, when Germany sent Jews to camps to be tortured, starved and murdered, hatred of the Jews seemed to have lain dormant.
Not for long.
Now, Jew-hate in the West — thanks to a widespread alliance between neo-Marxists, climate activists and Islamist propagandists – has once again become unashamedly “normalized” and mainstreamed — even, in some quarters, quite popular.
Discord between Western allies — ostensibly due to contrasting views towards Islam and Israel — has recently escalated to a new height. Its core most likely consists of a deep-seated envy that a handful of scruffy, hunted people managed to transform a land of sand dunes, deserts and malarial swamps into a gleaming superpower — all while defending themselves against unrelenting neighboring countries trying to snuff them out. Such an achievement must, of course, be punished. First, the Western alliance of 40 nations imposed sanctions on Israel while it was defending not only its own existence but theirs as well. These were immediately followed by revived demands to establish a belligerent Palestinian state directly on Israel’s border, despite Palestinians themselves having rejected the offer of both a Palestinian state and a “two-state solution” six times in favor of a one-state solution “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea”: all of Israel.
The purpose of these nations was apparently to benefit an ostensible “people” who not only admit to having been “invented, ” but who for decades have been unabashedly committed to annihilating Israel. As proposed by the US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee:
“If France is really so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them — carve out a piece of the French Riviera and create a Palestinian state. They are welcome to do that, but they are not welcome to impose that kind of pressure on a sovereign nation.”
In March, US President Donald J. Trump, planning his joint effort with Israel to terminate Iran’s nuclear program, made a request of US allies. He did not ask Europe for troops or even weapons. He merely asked if US airplanes could fly over their airspace or for use of military bases, which the US has not only been funding to protect – take a guess: Europe – but some of which, such as the base on Diego Garcia it actually co-owns with the United Kingdom. After earlier refusals by Europe and Canada to help with the war — a move that would have been in their own interests — his requests were denied.
Iran, it turned out, indeed possesses ballistic missiles capable of reaching deep into Europe, yet European nations remained unperturbed.
These European nations, endeavoring to claim the high moral ground by appealing to “international law” and vaunted human rights, voiced their intention not to become embroiled, either actively or passively, in America and Israel’s purportedly illegal operation, despite the US having become “embroiled” in their threats from Russia. Trump then expressed his displeasure by pulling 5,000 US troops out of Germany, and is weighing removing more troops from Italy and Spain.
The detachment from reality of Europe’s craven leaders also extends to ignoring not only Iran’s diabolical treatment of its own citizens, but also the murderous attacks it has carried out against innocent Jews and others worldwide.
Meanwhile, Iran and its jihadist proxies appear innocent of the Western “infidel” concepts of just wars, international laws, human rights or the Geneva conventions. They are mainly directed, it seems, by medieval Sharia law.
Since World War II, the US has been the backbone of NATO, while Europe has parasitically fed off America to jump to its defense. Instead of developing military preparedness, Europeans have, for years, reduced their forces in favor of funding, in addition to their own citizens, millions of newcomers who are not shy about saying how much they loathe their new domiciles, and destroying their economies by adopting “green energy,” such as wind turbines, which they were warned could never work. Without the burden of building functioning militaries, at first their economies prospered enormously – at America’s expense. They have now been exposed as “paper tigers,” while Russia is in the midst of trying to seize Crimea and Ukraine.
Europe as a whole has an enormous economy — $32 trillion, the same size as America’s. Together, they are the world’s two largest economies. Their members can afford significant military spending, and Trump has been requesting it.
In fairness, however, after Europe began two world wars in the last century, there did not seem to be a great appetite for Europe — read Germany — to be able to try that again.
In addition, NATO is constituted, presumably deliberately, as a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. The reluctance of NATO members to participate in the Iran campaign as part of a NATO team is therefore somewhat understandable. Even so, there is no reason for them not to participate individually, outside the NATO umbrella – as the US has been doing, especially in providing the use of military bases and flyover rights.
Trump, again, did not withhold his thoughts:
“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the US, we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just take it. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.”
Without America, Europe is lost – as it was in both World Wars.
In the circumstances, due to the fast growth of Islamic power in Europe, it might be wise for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his equally hapless – when not harmful — counterpart in France, President Emmanuel Macron, to relocate their nuclear weapons to US territory.
Islam has begun dominating the continent with mosques, Sharia courts, Islamic schools, halal food supply — and electing radicals to influential political positions at local or council levels as well as on national platforms.
“Leadership in times of crisis,” it has been said, “is not measured by the absence of risk, but by the willingness to accept it.” In avoiding risk, the cowardly leaders of Western Europe – those sell-outs to an increasingly antagonistic extremist Muslim electorate upon whom they are increasingly dependent for political office — are a disgrace to their nations. They are also a great disappointment to those who believe in the preservation of history’s finest civilization – one with freedom, democracy, human rights, and an embedded Judeo-Christian moral foundation.
These leaders seemingly reject any obligation to oppose attempts to destroy their nations’ traditional way of life. In the tradition of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who in 1938 imagined that he had a peace deal with Hitler, they have taken on a greater risk: that of appeasement.
European nations, it appears, have succumbed to Islamization. Their rapidly changing demographics reveal it; their failure to adequately protect their small Jewish communities against vociferous hate reveal it; their compromise on basic individual freedoms in their own countries reveal it, and their refusals to support the US, their erstwhile protector, reveal it.
Islamic extremists must feel immensely emboldened in their imperialist endeavors to colonize Europe.
The fecklessness of these weak leaders who turn their backs on efforts by the US and Israel to save the West has been fully exposed. The ultimate intent of Islamization, seemingly, is to dismantle Western civilization and impose a worldwide Islamic caliphate under Sharia law — as has been successfully achieved in Turkey, formerly the great Christian Byzantine Empire, as well as much of North Africa and central and south Asia.
In the UK, this process of Islamification has borne much fruit: Islam has become a dominant culture. Examples abound: the failure adequately to deal with the long-term mass sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of English children, and the increasing arrests of British citizens who, either online or in person, criticize the UK’s staggering cultural erosion.
Demographically, Britain is now a nation where the most popular name for baby boys, for 16 years running, is Mohammed (in its various spellings). Britain is a nation where Islamist extremists have been a primary criminal concern; where social cohesion is fractured, and where the “old world” will shortly be replaced by a culture not just free of Judeo-Christian values but that is adversarial to them.
Welcome to the new Europe. Its antagonists are inside the gate — without firing a single shot.
The striking sayings of one’s own teachers tend to stick in students’ minds. Looking back on my time as a student at the faculty of theology in Paderborn, I recall a classic quote from Professor Reinhard Marx during his lectures on Christian social teaching: “Whoever marries the spirit of the times will be a widower tomorrow!” A verbal bull’s-eye. It sticks in the ear — it sticks in the mind. At present, however, the former lecturer is once again being caught up by his own words, which hold up a mirror to the sociologist.
It was recently announced that Cardinal Marx intends to introduce the guidelines “Segen gibt der Liebe Kraft” (“Blessing Gives Love Strength”) in his diocese for couples who cannot enter into a sacramental marriage. The brochure from the so-called Synodal Path is thus intended to become the “foundation of pastoral care” and to apply equally to divorced and remarried couples, same-sex couples, and queer couples. The bishop’s directive was given additional weight by the stipulation that no couple should be turned away. However, the internal letter was apparently not intended to be made public, as no announcement appeared in the official gazette.
Against this backdrop, it becomes clear why Pope Benedict XVI contacted his successor as Archbishop of Munich and Freising in 2021 “to express his ‘great concern’ regarding the synodal process in Germany.” The pontiff was convinced that “this path would ‘cause harm and end badly if it is not stopped.’” Pope Benedict himself had emphasized in his apostolic exhortation Sacramentum caritatis, in light of the situation of divorced and remarried persons, that “it must be avoided in every case to bless these unions, so that no confusion arises among the faithful regarding the value of marriage.” Here, genuine pastoral care is needed, one grounded in the truth.
Every human being is willed by the Most High and called into existence as a person. Therefore, one cannot determine or change one’s own gender. The order of creation blessed by God states: “Created as man and woman, he has called them in marriage to an intimate communion of life and mutual love.”[1] For “the conjugal union of man and woman, founded by the Creator and endowed with its own laws, is by its very nature ordered toward the communion and well-being of the spouses, as well as toward the procreation and upbringing of children.”[2]
Created in the image of the Triune God, who is eternal love, human beings are called to purity (cf. Mt 5:8). The Decalogue clearly points the way and safeguards this calling. It follows, therefore, that sexual relations outside of a marriage valid before God constitute a grave violation of the sixth commandment and deeply defile those involved. The warning against sexual immorality expressed in the New Testament (cf. 1 Cor 6:18–20) cannot be dismissed if one does not wish to deceive and mislead people in a synodal manner.
The Creator has given His commandments to save us and lead us to eternal life. Based on the clear biblical message, the constant Magisterium of the Catholic Church has therefore always declared that homosexual practices are among the grave sins that constitute a grave violation of chastity (cf. CCC 2396) and are vehemently rejected by Sacred Scripture (cf. Gen 19:1–29; Lev 18:22; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:10). The Catechism reminds us of the dimension of the guilt of the Sodomites “cries out to heaven” (cf. CCC 1867).
Because many officials of the so-called Synodal Path often claim to want to listen more closely to the voices of women, a recent feast day offered a special opportunity to do so. For we look to the holy Doctor of the Church, Catherine of Siena, who has been proclaimed the patroness of Europe. In her famous work “The Dialogue of Divine Providence,” she testifies to how strongly the Lord condemns homosexual acts: “The wretched commit even worse acts and commit the accursed sin against nature. And like blind fools whose reason is clouded, they do not perceive the corruption and misery in which they are mired. It is not only to Me, who am the highest eternal purity, that it is an abomination (so abhorrent, in fact, that for the sake of this one sin I destroyed five cities through My divine judgment, since My justice could no longer bear it), but even to the demons.”[3]
True mercy, in following the Good Shepherd, therefore seeks out the lost sheep with genuine love (cf. Lk 15:4–7) before it is too late. It does not hypocritically affirm a person’s state of guilt but seeks to lead them to repentance for the sake of eternal salvation — from the death of sin to the life of grace. Doctrine and pastoral care cannot contradict one another. Genuine pastoral care looks to the will of the Lord and strives for the salvation of the person. In doing so, sin cannot be blessed. That would be a glaring abuse of the most holy name of God. A blatant blasphemy beyond Eden. Yet the Creator will not be mocked (cf. Gal 6:7).
The document “Blessing Gives Strength to Love” betrays both the Lord and humanity. What is a deeply wounded wife — who, after saying “I do” at the altar, was betrayed and abandoned by her husband — supposed to think of a synodal church that now blesses his union with a new flame? The woman left alone is humiliated once again, now even far worse. Adultery is effectively condoned, for a benediction, derived from benedicere, means nothing else. Any rational person can immediately recognize this decadent hypocrisy and will turn away from the scandalous dance around the golden calf.
In this time of the foretold apostasy (cf. 2 Thess 2:3), we are strengthened by the witness of the holy Apostle Paul, who, out of love for the Lord and for the salvation of souls, laid down his life for the truth of the Gospel and is a powerful intercessor for the Church:
“Brethren, join in imitating me, and take note of those who conduct themselves in accord with the model you have in us. As I have told you before, and now remind you with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their god is their stomach. Their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from there we await our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be conformed to his glorified body by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (Phil 3:17–21).
A dead boy has been found in an empty house in Memmingen. He was the victim of a violent crime. The police shot a suspect – and new details have since come to light.
The 14-year-old who went missing in Memmingen in the Allgäu region is believed to have been the victim of a violent crime. Following the discovery of the teenager’s body, the suspect, who had initially fled, died after being shot by police, according to a statement from the police and the public prosecutor’s office – he was a 37-year-old man whom the police had previously been searching for.
The suspect was already known to the authorities prior to the incidents in Memmingen. He had been convicted twice in Germany and the convictions had become final – for criminal damage in 2021 and for unlawful residence without a passport in 2026, said a spokeswoman for the Memmingen Public Prosecutor’s Office.
According to initial investigations, the 37-year-old was born in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. His nationality is still unclear, said the spokeswoman for the public prosecutor’s office. The Swabian government, as the competent immigration authority, confirmed to BR-Studio Schwaben on enquiry that the 37-year-old suspect is a rejected asylum seeker. The man had been “tolerated on the grounds of an unclarified identity”.
According to the current state of the investigation, the deceased suspect was born in Abu Qash. The suspect’s nationality is still unclear.
He was twice convicted in Germany and sentenced to fines – for criminal damage in 2021 and for unlawful residence without a passport in 2026.
For any enquiries regarding the residence status of the deceased suspect, please contact the Central Immigration Authority of the Government of Swabia, as they are the competent authority.
The grim reality behind cheap slogans like “Refugees Welcome” and “No Human Being is Illegal” is that behind the details of mass migration is the devil of modern day slavery.
We’re not just importing cheap labor and cheap votes, the real impetus for the collaborators inflicting mass migration on us, we are importing the social systems and abuses of other societies.
Slavery in the UK is at record levels and is expected to worsen over the next decade, the government’s independent anti-slavery commissioner has warned.
According to the number of referrals to the national referral mechanism, which assesses potential victims of slavery and provides support to victims, numbers have almost doubled in the last five years from 12,691 referrals in 2021 to 23,411 in 2025, the highest ever number.
Net migration to the UK also increased by around 50% during that time. And you can’t have one without the other. At least you can’t when your migrants are coming from some of the worst places in the world and they routinely traffic in human beings in their home societies.
Having over 1 million people enter the UK a year means that slavery will only continue growing.
But it won’t be ‘modern day slavery’. There’s nothing modern day about Afghanistan, Pakistan or any of these medieval theocracies colonizing the UK. The only modern day component here come from the politicians who are helping them do it.
The statue of the Virgin Mary holding the Baby Jesus in her arms is located on the Chemin de la Péronière in the small village of Poleymieux-au-Mont-d’Or (Rhône). It is believed to have been destroyed during the night of Sunday 3rd to Monday 4th May. The work, which dates from around 1938, was smashed with a sledgehammer or another tool powerful enough to shatter the stone. An investigation is underway, as Le Progrès has learnt.
The scene is shocking. At the junction of the La Peronière and Planchamp paths, the headless Virgin Mary holds her equally decapitated child in her arms. A metal rod protrudes from his bust, and the facial features of both figures lie at his feet on the stone plinth, where the inscription ‘Our Lady of Mont-d’Or’ is carved. Other debris is scattered across the ground.
The mayor of this town of 1,300 inhabitants, Corinne Cardona, has filed a complaint, and the gendarmerie will attempt to find out who might have damaged this religious monument. The mayor has also launched an appeal for witnesses among the town’s residents. “We have had many responses from angry and shocked people,” she said.
Barbara Nowacka Marsilar, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Poland’s top Catholic bishop warned on Saturday that compulsory “health education” in schools contains “very problematic content” on marriage and family—prompting a sharp response from the government that has further escalated the dispute.
Archbishop Tadeusz Wojda, head of the Polish Episcopal Conference, told worshippers the subject violates parents’ constitutional right to raise children according to their beliefs and called for broader consultation with families and religious groups.
Education minister Barbara Nowacka hit back, dismissing critics as driven by “ignorance or arrogance” and accusing some parents of being “toxic.”
“One toxic parent can destroy relationships around this subject,” she said on Monday, May 4th, adding that “wise parents” would still choose optional sexual health lessons.
The row centres on the government’s decision to make “health education” mandatory from September. The subject, introduced last year as an optional replacement for “education for family life,” will now be compulsory from the fourth year of primary school and for two years in secondary education.
Lessons cover hygiene, mental health, nutrition, physical activity, addiction prevention, and first aid. Content related to sex education, after earlier backlash, will remain optional.
Church leaders say the curriculum still undermines family values. They argue it separates sexuality from marriage, promotes “LGBTQ+ legal and social issues,” and sidelines parents.
Speaking to europeanconservative.com last year, Polish pedagogue and theologian Zbigniew Barciński said the programme removes sexual education from the context of marriage and family, instead framing it in ideological terms.
Archbishop Wojda also pointed to participation figures: while only around 30% of pupils opted into the classes when they were voluntary, roughly 70% still attend Catholic catechism—raising the question of why one is now being imposed while the other remains a choice.
Opposition figures reacted angrily. MP Olga Semeniuk-Patkowska of the conservative opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party wrote: “Nowacka wants to indoctrinate children, and every parent who thinks differently is, for her, a ‘nuisance’”.
Right-wing commentator Marcin Ostaszewski quipped: “Certainly. Just as some ministers are a nuisance to the country.”
The exchange has sharpened what was already a tense debate, turning a curriculum change into a broader confrontation over parental authority and the state’s role in shaping what children are taught.
Ever since taking office as German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz’s popularity has only fallen.
That’s hardly surprising, since he is pushing for the same failed Globalist policies as his predecessor Olaf Scholz, and is leading a country with a stagnant economy and a fractured society due to unchecked mass migration.
Merz’s numbers are a record low: a mid-April poll shows only 18% of voters are satisfied with his work, while as much as 80% are dissatisfied. Even the majority of Merz voters are reportedly unhappy.
🇩🇪 Merz faces public ridicule
A journalist asks what has actually improved for German citizens since he took office as Chancellor
The room breaks into laughter
Merz appears visibly uncomfortable, struggling to find a clear response
“Chancellor Friedrich Merz marks a year in office this week facing the biggest crisis with Washington in decades, after President Donald Trump said he would hit European auto imports with 25% tariffs and pull thousands of troops out of Germany.
The moves, announced on Friday after Trump reacted angrily to criticism by Merz of U.S. strategy in the Iran war, underline the break in transatlantic relations that has become increasingly apparent in Trump’s second term and add to an array of problems now facing the German leader.”
“In an interview with German public television on Sunday, Merz, who was sworn into office on May 6 last year, acknowledged public doubts, reflected in opinion polls that now put the far-right Alternative for Germany ahead of his conservatives as the country’s most popular party.
‘The doubts are growing. Not about me, but about the coalition’, he said.”
The Chancellor made offensive comments about the US campaign in Iran, setting fire to the alliance with the US – and so far he hasn’t been able to put of the flames.
