Supporters of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban took to the streets of Budapest for a large-scale “Peace March.” The rally drew thousands, with Orban expected to address the crowd, emphasizing national unity and Hungary’s stance on key political issues.
Watch highlights from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ‘Peace March’ in Budapest. Supporters gathered in the streets to show their support, with Orban delivering a powerful speech at the rally. Stay tuned for exclusive footage from this major political event. Thousands of supporters of Viktor Orbán gathered in Budapest for a massive “Peace March” rally showing support for Hungary’s government. The march began in the morning as crowds filled the streets of the Hungarian capital before the prime minister delivered his highly anticipated speech at the rally. The event highlights the strong political support for Orbán as tensions continue across Europe over war, security, and international relations. Supporters waved banners, marched through the city, and gathered to hear the Hungarian leader address the crowd.
Was Angela Merkel or was she not a communist agent during the Soviet era? Did Merkel or did she not remain in contact with/in the service of her former masters after the fall of the Wall, serving Russian interests to the detriment of Germany? Even a child understands that these questions are of considerable historical—and current!—importance. A child. But not the German Deep State.
The Berlin Administrative Court has once again slammed the door shut on efforts to uncover the full truth about Angela Merkel’s early ties to the East German communist regime and its notorious Stasi secret police — delivering a ruling that reeks of legal hair-splitting designed to protect the powerful rather than serve historical transparency.
In a decision handed down on March 13, 2026, the court rejected a lawsuit brought by persistent researcher and Good Governance Trade Union chairman Marcel Luthe, who sought access to all Stasi-related documents concerning Merkel from her youth in the DDR.
The judges dismissed the entire claim, slapping Luthe with €20,000 in court costs (!!) and refusing even to allow an immediate appeal in some aspects.
The core reasoning? Pure semantics: Merkel allegedly wasn’t a “person of contemporary history” (Person der Zeitgeschichte) back when the files were created — before she emerged as a spokesperson for the Demokratischer Aufbruch party around February 3, 1990.
That’s right — the entire judgment hinges on pedantic arguments about whether Merkel qualified as a public figure at the precise moment the Stasi may have documented her activities. The court insisted she was merely a “kleines Licht” (a small light, or insignificant figure) in those years, positioned “very low” in the FDJ (Free German Youth) hierarchy and not prominently involved.
Never mind that no one disputes she became one of the most powerful figures on the planet — the court retroactively shields her pre-1990 life from scrutiny because she wasn’t yet “famous enough” under the narrow terms of the Stasi Records Act.
Was Merkel an agent, a spy, or a Stasi informant?
This is exactly the kind of bureaucratic dodging that frustrates anyone demanding real accountability. The Stasi Records Act doesn’t grant blanket access, the judges lectured, and releasing everything would amount to impermissible “Ausforschung” (fishing expedition) into private matters — even citing absurd hypotheticals like whether Merkel was “grilling meatballs in the Uckermark.” (German humor)
But the real issue isn’t trivia: it’s major historical questions of public interest. Luthe highlighted three explosive areas:
Why did DDR customs impose no consequences when banned Solidarity materials were found on Merkel during a return trip from Poland — unlike similar cases that ended harshly?
Did she serve as an FDJ secretary for agitation and propaganda, a role described as a prominent political position and essentially a messenger for the regime’s ideology?
Was Merkel a Russian asset?
These aren’t fringe theories — they touch on the extent of Merkel’s compromise with the communist dictatorship that oppressed millions.
Did Merkel continue to work for Russia after 1989?
Knowing the depth of any accommodation or favoritism she may have received from the regime (or its lingering remnants) is a matter of immense public interest — especially for a woman who went on to lead unified Germany for 16 years and shape (or destroy) Europe’s destiny.
Yet the court waved away these concerns, prioritizing Merkel’s personality rights over the right of historians and citizens to understand the full scope of her DDR past.
No partial release was granted; documents predating early February 1990 remain locked away entirely. True to the Stasi tradition, Merkel herself has not consented to disclosure. Luthe vows to fight on — up to the Higher Administrative Court and even the Federal Constitutional Court if necessary.
In an era when transparency about elite entanglements with authoritarian pasts is more vital than ever, this ruling feels like another chapter in the establishment’s long effort to keep inconvenient history buried.
The German and indeed the West public deserves better than semantic shields protecting former leaders from legitimate scrutiny. Especially when these leaders have destroyed their own countries.
“It can happen that a civilization disappears; it wouldn’t be the first time. Civilizations disappear-it is the norm. Our successors will arrive at an indefinite moment; we don’t know when. And it may be that the civilization will have already vanished. The collapse can occur violently or slowly”.
So speaks Michel Houellebecq to the German newspaper Die Welt this week. It seems “the successors” are arriving on horseback.
Manchester– the cradle of the Industrial Revolution and an emblem of Western progress-is now the stage for a multicultural drama. This is not dystopian science fiction. It is not a scene from Buñuel’s “The Exterminating Angel”, where a flock of sheep crosses the room and no one finds it strange. It is us: the West transformed into a multicultural stable.
The British police have surrendered the streets to an Islamic militia in uniform and on horseback, which patrols the main arteries to prevent “disrespectful kuffar” from attending vigils for the deceased martyr Ali Khamenei. The police response: a polite request to move, as if they were a troop of Boy Scouts.
A militia of uniformed, bearded men has taken possession of the streets of Manchester. On horseback. They charged anti-Iranian regime protesters like something out of an Islamic Western.
When Ramadan is celebrated in Manchester Cathedral, worry.
When the city of Manchester announces it will not turn on Christmas lights, worry.
When a police officer at the Manchester Arena-where an Islamic terrorist killed 22 people, including many children, at an Ariana Grande concert-does not check the attacker for fear of being accused of “racism,” worry.
When 22.3 percent of Manchester’s 553,000 inhabitants are Muslim, compared to 15 percent in 2017, worry.
When Manchester police remove posters of Hamas hostages, worry.
The same public force that dares not touch an Islamist on horseback zealously removes the faces of Hamas victims.
Meanwhile, English schools have just been informed that children’s drawings could be considered “blasphemous” under Islamic law.
It is not that England does not want to intervene in support of America and Israel in the war against the Islamic Republic. It is that England cannot: it is transforming into an Islamic monarchy.
When people asked why the men on horseback weren’t arrested, an officer replied: “What do you want me to do, pull him off his horse?”. Absolutely. The right answer was: “I’ll pull him down, and if he resists, I’ll break his arm and take the horse back to the stable, because this is not his country-it is mine”.
The very talented Dominic Green writes in the Wall Street Journal: “Two nights before my departure for Manchester, supporters of the Iranian regime gathered to mourn the death of Khamenei. Their opponents gathered for a counter-protest and fought in the streets. In the chaos, bearded men dressed in black with white armbands appeared on horseback like medieval ghosts”.
We opened the doors to millions who do not want to integrate, but to conquer. And now we are surprised if Sharia horses gallop through the streets of the world’s first industrial city?.
Manchester is not an anomaly; it is the future knocking-or rather, galloping-at our doors.
To win, all the Islamic Republic of Iran has to do is survive. At the moment, they are doing it. The West is working hard to disappear.
The Sikh owner of a London-based Indian restaurant was briefly detained by the police on Saturday, following days of controversy over his refusal to sell halal meat. Indian-origin restaurateur Harman Singh Kapoor had earlier claimed that he had become the target of Muslim protesters over his refusal to sell halal.
Kapoor had posted frequently about being threatened and intimidated by members of what he referred to as the “peaceful community” for not selling halal food. Videos he had shared online earlier captured groups of protesters outside his restaurant Rangrez in London.
Screen grab X
On Saturday, footage of Harman Singh Kapoor being handcuffed by police officers inside his restaurant emerged online. Visuals also showed him being led away by cops and forced into a police van.
>Sikh restaurant refuses to sell halal meat >100+ armed Muslim men swarm the restaurant, try to break in, film their kids, and threaten to rape and murder them >police arrive but arrest none of the mob
>police arrest the restaurant owner the next day instead
A Sudanese man who snatched a five-year-old girl from the street before sexually assaulting her inside his home has been jailed for 11 years.
Mohammed Abdulraziq, 32, grabbed the child while she was playing outside and took her into his terraced house.
The girl was rescued after her mother heard her crying from inside the property and raised the alarm.
Two men forced their way into the house and restrained Abdulraziq until police arrived.
When rescuers reached her, the girl’s cycling shorts had been pulled down to her ankles, the court was told.
Abdulraziq’s lower clothing was also around his ankles, and he was positioned bent over the child near a bed.
A jury at Birmingham Crown Court convicted him of false imprisonment with intent to commit a sexual offence, sexual assault and assault.
On March 30, 2025, the victim was playing outside while her mother chatted with a neighbour.
Abdulraziq approached and spoke to the mother while “clearly” intoxicated on illegal substances, according to sentencing judge Kerry Maylin.
Jurors were told the Sudanese national had been drinking beer and smoking a synthetic cannabis substance prior to the incident.
Judge Maylin told the court he made “sexualised comments” towards the girl’s mother.
She said: “They were disturbing but she quite properly ignored the comments but she was sufficiently concerned to go down the road and close her own front door.
“She then returned to speak to her neighbour. She kept a close eye on her daughter throughout.”
However, in the brief moment the mother glanced away for fewer than 10 seconds, Abdulraziq seized her daughter.
The mother and her friend immediately began hunting for the child, checking a nearby park and a corner shop.
Upon returning to the street, the mother recognised her daughter’s cries coming from inside a house.
Judge Maylin described the victim as a “little girl happily playing in the street”.
She added: “While you cannot be seen on the footage I am sure you encouraged the girl to enter your home and took her to your bedroom and the door was locked. It is perhaps fortunate that your room overlooked the street.”
The victim’s mother said in her impact statement that both she and her daughter had suffered “trauma” from the ordeal.
The child’s “cries of distress and helplessness” would “haunt her” permanently, the judge relayed.
The court also heard that the victim had transformed from a “happy, confident child into one with complex behavioural needs”.
Detective Sergeant Nicky Simms, from West Midlands Police, said: “Abdulraziq was a predatory individual who took a young girl off the street and into his house. Fortunately, incidents of this nature are rare.
“I must praise the courage of the girl and her mother in what has been a very sensitive investigation.”
Notice the pattern. That’s what the media isn’t doing.
Last Sunday, March 8th, the U.S. embassy in Oslo was bombed. The perpetrators turned out to be three Iraqis who were allegedly members of a Muslim drug gang operating in Europe under orders from Iran.
On Monday, March 9th, a bomb went off outside a synagogue in Liège, Belgium. An Islamic terrorist group claimed credit.
On Friday, March 13th, there was an explosion and a fire at a synagogue in Rotterdam. Police arrested four unnamed teenagers.
On Saturday, March 14th, a Jewish school in Amsterdam was bombed.
One significant thing here is the sheer number of attacks.
In the United States, we’ve had four attacks in March. Two in one day. As bad as that is, Europe continues to be ahead of us with four attacks in one week. Nothing to gloat about. It’s a signpost of where we’re headed unless we end Muslim mass migration to Europe, deport anyone who sympathies with terrorists and start doing the clean up we failed to do after 9/11.
The clock is ticking. Islamic Jihadis are showing us what they can do when they have the numbers. This is a numbers game we can still win, but like Europe, we’re on the verge of losing it.
German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller attends the funeral procession of Cardinal Joachim Meisner in Cologne. Starting in St. Gereon (viewing area), going to the Cologne Cathedral (Funeral place). Wikimedia Commons, Elke Wetzig. CC-BY-SA-4.0
One of the foremost conservative members of the College of Cardinals has castigated mass migration, spoken of the danger of “civil wars,” and called for greater recognition that “nations” and peoples have rights in an exclusive interview with europeanconservative.com. Faced with unprecedented demographic shifts, the former curial official insists that now is the time for politicians and citizens of European and Western nations to take up responsibility and “decide if they want to be marginalised in their own country.”
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller is an imposing man. The former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—initially founded as the Roman Inquisition—under Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, he once occupied the arguably most powerful and influential post in the Catholic Church behind that of the papacy itself. A tall and well-built Rhinelander, he speaks slowly and carefully. Seated in front of his extensive library in his reception room, he confided frankly, giving intellectually formed answers.
It irritates Cardinal Müller that, after the politically progressive sympathies of Pope Francis, observers inside and outside of the Church mistake these stances for those of authentic Catholic belief and doctrine. Elsewhere, he has criticised an exaggerated understanding of papal infallibility, often referred to as ‘ultramontanism’ and a “cult of the personality” surrounding Pope Francis. Müller condemns this error “that says every private meaning of the Pope is a dogma or is an interpretation of the revealed truth.”
Müller says explicitly that, while under very specific, rare, and limited circumstances papal infallibility does exist for Catholics, this categorically does not extend to “his private understanding about migrants and so forth.”
“He has to defend the human rights of everybody,” he explained. “But it is another question entirely whether there should come, in ten years, millions and millions of Muslim migrants to change, totally, the culture and provoke civil wars, as happens in majority Muslim countries.”
Müller went further: “It is impossible, integration, if a big majority do not become Christian.”
“In nearly all the Muslim countries, there is an oppression of Christian communities,” he continued. “When I ask ChatGPT, and AI, it says Muslims are tolerant. The next question I ask is, can you tell me one [Muslim majority] country where Christians have the same rights? And they can say nothing.”
“There is no good answer,” he said. “In this question, it is the responsibility of the politicians and the citizens of the countries to decide if they want to be marginalised in their own country.”
Müller recognised that this trend is beneficial neither for Europeans and Western peoples nor for the Church. He observed that “everywhere” we are observing an increase in “attacks against the church buildings and against Christian values and ideas.” The former of which, anti-Christian hate crimes, have been rising exponentially and are assiduously documented by the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians, which helped bring a formal challenge to the European Parliament in 2025 for their inaction to confront it.
“But it is also our fault,” Müller reflected, suggesting that mass migration is inextricably related to unresolved crises in birth rates and fertility. “I remember when I was young, there was harsh politics against the family, matrimony, against children. This demographic catastrophe is man-made. Like in China with their stupid one-child policy.”
Although he believes there are adverse material, social, and political conditions making family formation difficult, Müller also believes there are ideational and spiritual anti-familial forces let loose upon the population.
“It’s a natural feeling to have children if you are living in matrimony,” he said. “It’s against nature and against grace not to.”
Müller believes that states, “feeling in a paternalistic way”, that place obstacles in the way of this do so illegitimately and are “always wrong” to do so.
“The state is only there for the common good, for infrastructure,” he clarified. “But it has no right to interfere in the natural law and the moral life… States [oftentimes] feel like gods who can instrumentalise the lives of people only for the interests of the powerful.”
Asked about whether Catholic philosophy, which has historically rejected atomistic individualism, and whether the Church has responded as swiftly and competently to the errors of the age this century—particularly surrounding the rights of indigenous peoples and of nations—he agrees that this warrants serious attention.
He stated that “now we also have to defend the right of the nations” to exist and sustain themselves.
Articulating his understanding, Müller explained that “nations developed in the West after the Roman Empire” and the arrival of the Christian faith. He acknowledged that there have been excesses of nationalism and imperialism and colonialism in the past, aspects of which have been “terrible” and “absolutely anti-Christian.”
Nevertheless, he does not believe nations or ethnic differences to be something evil to be destroyed but instead sees them as something that helpfully and healthily orders societies along the model of the extended family.
“Because we are not isolated individuals, we are persons,” he said. “We are families. We share language, the same culture, the same schools, the same legends. We have the beginnings here of certain identities, of literature and arts, and so on.”
This is necessary, he believes, for belonging and to form lasting attachments, as “nobody can learn all the languages [or] realise all the possibilities.”
Müller recognises there is often necessarily an ethnic and ancestral component to nationalities, which have real cultural and historical and ideational forms and shapes, meaning that “we can say ‘I’m a typical Englishman or German’ without absolutising it.”
“Jesus became flesh in all human contexts,” he continued. “Therefore there is a right for all nations to continue with their special culture without contradiction to the others. It is a good image to say we are a family in mankind. But we are in a European family and so on.”
Müller indicated the fourth commandment, suggesting that the natural and divine call to patriotism and serving one’s own parents are closely intertwined—the latter of which in the fourth commandment the Catholic Church has historically interpreted as also extending to reasonable honour rendered to one’s own ancestors and people.
“We are against globalism. We are a universal Church. But a universal Church in the house of my father,” Müller clarified. “There are different habitations for everyone.”
On today’s #NCFTrimble we are joined by Orange Prize Winner, Sunday Times best-selling author, and columnist Lionel Shriver, whose much-awaited new book is A Better Life, a provocative novel addressing contemporary immigration. In it she deals with many of the issues we discuss here at the New Culture Forum: Islam, immigration, the madness of the liberal left and the 5th column active in Britain today.
A controversy has erupted in European football, and the stage is one of the sport’s most iconic stadiums. Real Madrid decided to remove the Spanish flag from its supporters’ section at the Santiago Bernabéu during the match against Manchester City due to concerns about possible disciplinary sanctions from UEFA.
The decision has not gone unnoticed among fans. Many supporters of the Spanish club were surprised to see the absence of the national flag in an area of the stadium where it has traditionally been present for decades during major European nights.
According to various reports circulating among supporters and within the club’s environment, the move follows previous warnings from the governing body of European football. UEFA maintains strict regulations regarding banners, symbols, and messages that could be interpreted as political or ideological during international competitions.
Faced with that scenario, the club appears to have chosen a cautious approach. The main objective is to avoid any disciplinary case that could lead to financial penalties or sporting consequences during a crucial stage of the European competition.
However, the decision has sparked clear frustration among part of the Real Madrid fan base. For many supporters, it is difficult to understand how the official flag of Spain could become a source of warning inside a stadium located in Spain itself.
For decades, the Spanish flag has been a natural part of the atmosphere at the Santiago Bernabéu, especially during historic European nights. Thousands of fans have brought it to the stadium simply as a symbol of pride and support for one of the country’s most internationally recognized clubs.
That is why the measure has generated surprise and criticism on social media, where numerous fans have expressed disbelief. Many are asking how it is possible that displaying the flag of one’s own country could create problems during a sporting event.
UEFA has long defended a policy of strict neutrality inside stadiums. Under this interpretation, any symbol that could be linked to political or identity-related issues may be subject to warnings or sanctions depending on the context in which it appears during official matches.
This is not the first time the European governing body has faced criticism over its interpretation of stadium symbolism. Similar debates have emerged in other European countries when clubs or supporters were warned for displaying national or regional flags during international matches.
In Real Madrid’s case, the club has opted to minimize risk during a crucial moment of the season. Protecting the team from potential sanctions remains the top priority as the competition progresses.
Still, the episode has sparked a broader debate that goes beyond football. Many supporters find it difficult to understand how a national flag—officially recognized by the state—could become controversial inside a sports arena.
For some observers, what happened at the Bernabéu reflects a growing trend within certain international institutions to limit the presence of national symbols in public spaces, even when those symbols are deeply tied to the cultural identity of citizens.
And that is where criticism increasingly emerges across Europe. While bureaucratic institutions impose ever more rigid regulations, many ordinary citizens feel they are being asked to abandon symbols that are part of their history, culture, and identity.
For years, sectors of the political left promoted precisely that idea: diluting national identities in favor of supranational structures that promised harmony and progress. But what many citizens now perceive is something quite different—distant institutions attempting to dictate even which flag people can display inside the stadium of their own country.
Canada is soon set to reach a milestone unlike any other nation, as this year it is expected that over 100,000 Canadians will have died by state-sanctioned and promoted euthanasia.
The grim milestone comes 10 years after Canada’s euthanasia or “Medical Assistance in Dying” (“MAID”) program became legal, in 2016, under former Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
This means that, on average, about 45 Canadians die per day from euthanasia, and 16,499 people died due to the practice in 2024 alone.
Commentator and activist Kelsi Sheren, in a recent blog post, highlighted Canada’s euthanasia deaths, noting Canada is “about to kill its 100,000th citizen through Medical Assistance in Dying”.
As it stands now, since 2016, 76,475 Canadians have officially died by euthanasia, with 2025 figures yet to be released. However, given the trend in deaths going up each year, surpassing 100,000 deaths is all but a certainty.
“MAiD was sold as a narrow option for the terminally ill, a rare mercy. That fiction collapsed long ago,” noted Sheren.
“Today, assisted death is a routine outcome for people struggling with disability, isolation, poverty, and mental health challenges and when the world looked at what we’re doing, it didn’t nod approvingly. It recoiled.”
Sheren noted how she is certain Canada’s euthanasia program “is barreling towards its 100,000th case.”
According to Canadian medical doctor Jonathan Edwards, “Canada’s MAiD program—Medical Assistance in Dying, basically their polished, judge-approved version of euthanasia—is barreling towards its 100,000th case.”
“Nothing shouts ‘compassionate care’ like 100,000 state-approved terminations in under a decade,” he noted.
“The Canadian government has euthanized, put down, or killed nearly 100,000 of its own citizens in the name of compassion and restoring human dignity. It’s now the 5th leading cause of death in Canada behind cancer, heart disease, and accidents,” he added.
As recently reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government has created a committee filled with euthanasia activists to determine whether or not Canada should expand assisted suicide to those with mental illness, but a few members of Parliament on the committee promise to advocate for life.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada could be one step closer to allowing euthanasia for newborns. Under the current law, assisted suicide is prohibited for minors and the mentally ill. Activists, however, have been pushing for expansions with varying degrees of success.
In 2021, the former Trudeau government expanded euthanasia from killing only “terminally ill” patients to allowing the chronically ill to qualify after the passage of Bill C-7. Since then, the government has sought to include those suffering solely from mental illness.
In February 2024, after pushback from pro-life, medical, and mental health groups, as well as most of Canada’s provinces, the federal government delayed the mental illness expansion until 2027.
The expansion of euthanasia for the mentally ill is slated to become law in 2027 as a consequence of the passage of Bill C-7.
