Former residents have filed 20 reports of sexual assault and violence
Stek O0st GOOGLE Maps
This sounds like the plot of one of those terrible reality shows from a generation ago, The Real World or Big Brother, put together 125 students, who get all their reality from university indoctrination, and 125 ‘refugees’ from the third world and the Muslim world, and see how many lives are destroyed in the process.
You can think of Stek Oost in the Netherlands as a microcosm of the entire Western experiment with Muslim mass migration.
A total of 125 students and 125 refugees would live alongside each other, and were even encouraged to ‘buddy up’ so the migrants would adapt to life in the Netherlands more quickly.
But things quickly turned sour as students shared horrific details of sexual assaults, harassment, violence and stalking with the Dutch investigative documentary programme Zembla.
Former residents of Stek Oost have filed 20 reports of sexual assault and violence in the past 18 months.
Drug trafficking was reported, fights broke out, and the housing association suspected a gang rape had taken place in one of the studios.
A man told the programme that a refugee threatened him with an eight-inch kitchen knife.
In one shocking case, a woman said she was raped by a Syrian refugee who invited her into his room to watch a film in 2019.
The woman, identified only as Amanda, said: “He wanted to learn Dutch, to get an education. I wanted to help him.”
In 2024, former Stek Oost resident Mohammed RA was convicted of two counts of rape. One against Amanda and another against a separate female resident.
Of course his name was Mohammed. And of course no lessons will be learned from this now that the Netherlands has a far left-wing government.
This is like putting lab mice and snakes in the same tank and then pretending not to notice when at the end there are only 125 fat snakes.
This is also the long term prospect for any western country that does not stop Muslim mass migration into its borders.
A trans-identified male in Norway currently appealing a conviction for the rape of a young girl has announced that he has begun the process to change his legal sex marker to ‘female.’ Damien “Damia Scarlet Rose Nesne” Baar, 45, was convicted last year of the rape of a girl while she was between the ages of 12 and 14.
Independent journalist Elin Gregusson attended court proceedings this week in the Gulating Court of Appeal, which heard arguments from Baar and two other men who were convicted for sexually abusing the girl. Gregusson discussed the proceedings via a series of Facebook posts.
“Today, the 45-year-old [Baar] declared that next Friday he will submit documentation that will allow him to become a legal woman,” Gregusson wrote on January 14.
“So absurd has Norwegian law become that this plan is, by all accounts, going to be realized… He will consequently receive a new social security number and be registered as a woman in public registers. Perhaps also as a female criminal in the crime statistics. In the worst case, the Norwegian Correctional Service could decide that he should have his wish fulfilled to serve his sentence in a women’s prison.”
In addition to announcing his plan to change his legal sex, Baar stated that he had endured a difficult life as a result of being “transgender,” and demanded he receive surgeries and hormones subsidized by taxpayers while incarcerated.
Baar’s defense attorney Ivar Abrahamsen questioned how his client’s mental health had been affected by his conviction. In response, Baar lamented that “shitty tabloid newspapers” had published photos of him, which caused him to be thrown out of his local bar.
Defense attorneys had previously attempted to argue for leniency for their clients by pointing to a news report published by Reduxx in January which named the men and shared their photos. However, the court disagreed with the contention that this constituted a mitigating circumstance.
In May 2025, Baar and one other trans-identified male, Even “Eevee” Seberg, were convicted of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 14 and an instance of gang rape in which “the act [was] committed by several people together… in a particularly painful or particularly offensive manner.” Both men claim to be trans women, and committed the sexual abuse alongside a third man, Kenneth Langvatn Aakre.
Two trans-identified males in Norway have been convicted of the repeated rape and sexual abuse of a vulnerable young girl.
Damia Scarlet Rose Nesne Baar and Eevee Seberg attempted to use their transgender status as a defense in court.https://t.co/W36RCPxzWP
The sexual abuse of the child first came to the attention of authorities on the night of June 3, 2024, after Aakre was seen kissing the victim on the mouth and grabbing her genital area while on public transport. Aakre and Baar had plied the victim with alcohol, and the three were leaving a Pride festival in Bergen. Charges laid in the indictment included the procurement of alcohol for a minor.
On June 1, 2024, Baar and the girl met Seberg in Losjehaven, where they attended the Pride Festival, before returning to Baar’s apartment. Between June 1 and 3 both men sexually abused and raped the girl on multiple occasions, with the court noting that they had used “sex toys” on the victim. Baar photographed one incident as Seberg sexually abused the child. The men then urinated on the girl while she was taking a shower.
According to the judgement, Seberg’s attempts to penetrate the girl had failed because “she [Seberg] lost her erection.” Seberg was therefore given a reduced sentence of one year and six months on the charge of aggravated sexual conduct, as attorneys had maintained that he was unable to maintain an erection when attempting to rape the young girl. He was also ordered to pay a fine of 200,00 Norwegian kroner.
During a police interrogation, Baar admitted to having raped the girl “several times” on the night of May 31, 2024, when she was thirteen years old. During questioning, Baar admitted to having had a history of abusing the victim, noting another incident of sexual abuse had taken place during a weekend in September 2023.
Baar was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison, and has been ordered to pay a 350,000 Norwegian kroner ($34,600 USD) fine.
While Aakre was also charged with sexual activity with a child, he has not been accused of participating in the rape or gang rape of the girl. Aakre was sentenced to sixty days imprisonment with a reduction for time detained, and was ordered to pay a fine of 30,000 Norwegian kroner.
Baar and Seberg were additionally charged and found guilty of producing images of child sexual abuse involving the victim.
Hordaland court records reviewed by Reduxx state that the victim was an at-risk youth due to “life challenges,” and that the three men “exploited her vulnerable situation.” Sentencing documents further reveal that the victim had been struggling with an eating disorder and had recently been reported as missing from a child welfare institution.
Gregusson, commenting on the proceedings in the Court of Appeal this week, noted that although the victim had been living in a child welfare institution, representatives from the state-funded service neglected to appear in court.
“I wonder why no one from the [child protection] ministry or the BUF Directorate is following the trial. The hearing bench should have been full of bureaucrats who supposedly work for the best interests of children. They would want to learn. The same applies to the press. It seems that interest disappeared when Nettavisen and Subjekt reported the case truthfully, stating that the convicted were men who wanted to serve time in women’s prisons.”
The three defendants sit together in court, each with their own defense attorney,” Gregusson continued. “They have access to everything and listen to each other. They and their professional lawyers can collaborate so that the explanations are as consistent as possible. The victim is not present. No one from child welfare, either. The imbalance is palpable.”
Gregusson said that during the appeal, Baar blamed the young girl for the sexual abuse, describing himself as “people-pleaser” who “struggles to say ‘no.’”
🚨EXCLUSIVE DETAILS🚨
Two trans-identified males have been charged with the repeated rape and gang rape of a young girl in Bergen, Norway.
The abuses first came to light after witnesses saw the girl be groped while leaving a Pride event.https://t.co/d4bav7cmc9
Reduxx previously reported on the case, and was able to locate social media profiles belonging to the three men, most of which have since been hastily deleted.
On X, Seberg describes himself as “trans fem,” and “pansexual,” and frequently interacts with transgender and hentai pornography accounts. In one disturbing post dated October 2024, Seberg said he “prefer[s] to get raped by girldick.” On Facebook he refers to himself as “a bit odd, but kind.”
Baar and Seberg are mutual contacts on the world’s leading fetish network FetLife, where Seberg describes himself as a “trans woman” with a “perverted stream of consciousness.”
In a journal entry posted to FetLife in October last year, just four months after he and Baar allegedly raped the young girl, Seberg wrote, “Have you ever seen a girl and thought not just that she is pretty, but that you wish you could be her? Well, most of us that have that experience are trans girls, but not everyone arrives at the realization at the same time.”
Baar is similarly active in BDSM-themed groups on FetLife, and claims that he “came out as trans” in February 2021.
“I guess I’m more Finic than Lesbian,” reads Baar’s profile. “Finic is a term for people on the multisexual spectrum who have a preference towards people who are feminine in nature (FIN). This can refer to people who are attracted to feminine or woman-aligned genders, such as people who are fingender or fiaspec. It can refer to people who are attracted to a feminine gender presentation (regardless of the person’s actual gender).”
Baar describes himself as a voyeur, exhibitionist, sadist, and “brat tamer,” and lists “group sex” as one of his fetishes. Other fetishes listed by Baar include “pain,” “screaming,” and “tearing off clothing.” On Instagram, Baar has shared photos of himself edited with FaceApp to resemble a young girl.
In Hamburg city centre, a scuffle initially broke out on the fringes of a demonstration (source: screenshot via X).
After a peaceful demonstration in support of the Iranian people took place in Hamburg on Saturday, knife violence suddenly broke out. Shortly after 5 p.m., after the demonstration had ended, two people were injured by stab wounds, one of whom was in critical condition on Saturday evening. The police were able to arrest three men.
The identity of the suspects and their motives are still unclear. Rumours that the attackers were Afghan migrants have not been confirmed. A police spokesperson told the Bild newspaper that it was not yet known whether the men had participated in the demonstration.
According to the Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper, a physical altercation broke out, during which knives were brandished. The victims were also men. One was stabbed in the leg, the other in the back. The latter was in critical condition for a time.
Videos showing a scuffle around the demonstration are circulating on social media. Anti-Mullah demonstrators appear to be chasing other men away. Other videos from the same location show a person bleeding heavily from the leg being treated by the police. Next to the victim is a man carrying the old Iranian flag with a lion printed in the centre. It is considered a symbol of protest against the Mullah regime.
Two people stabbed and seriously injured in Hamburg, Germany. They were demonstrating for Western intervention in Iran.
Around 12,000 people took part in the ‘No to the Islamic Republic of Iran’ demonstration on Saturday. They were protesting against the mullah regime. The demonstration was organised by the Constitutionalist Party of Iran, which campaigns for the introduction of a constitutional monarchy in Iran. In keeping with this, Iranian flags featuring a lion were displayed at the demonstration. These flags date back to before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, when Iran was still ruled by a shah.
Internationally, but especially in Iran, protests gained momentum at the turn of the year. The trigger was apparently the poor economic situation, which led to discontent with the regime spilling onto the streets. According to various human rights organisations, more than 3,000 people have already been killed by the Islamic National Guard in Iran. Other estimates put the number of civilians killed at up to 20,000.
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced on social media that he is joining President Trump’s Board of Peace initiative. The board aims to coordinate political, security and humanitarian issues following the end of the Gaza conflict—while also promoting a longer-term peace process.
🇭🇺🇺🇸📩 With President @realDonaldTrump comes peace. Another letter has arrived.
Hungary’s efforts for peace are being recognised.
President Trump has invited Hungary to join the work of The Board of Peace as a founding member. We have, of course, accepted this honourable… pic.twitter.com/6XZnho9bjj
The Board of Peace is not a formal international organisation but a high-level political advisory forum launched by the United States in 2026. According to Donald Trump, its role is to provide guidance on post-war governance, security guarantees, and the framework for international engagement. Trump himself chairs the body, which brings together American and international political figures.
According to publicly available information, the board includes members of Trump’s inner circle, such as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and former presidential adviser Jared Kushner. Representatives from several Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, are also expected to take part, alongside experienced international politicians and diplomats such as the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and former British prime minister Tony Blair. The final list of participants has not yet been confirmed.
Orbán’s invitation suggests that Trump views Hungary as one of the countries with the political experience and international reach to contribute to the preparation of the peace process. The Hungarian government has stressed repeatedly its support for diplomatic solutions over armed conflict and its willingness to take part in international peace initiatives.
16-year-old Ukrainian refugee Liana, who was murdered by Iraqi migrant Mohammed A, via X
Germany’s left-liberal globalist ruling class has once again offered a grim lesson in what happens when an ideology of multiculturalism and mass migration at any cost replaces responsibility.
The senseless, brutal, anti-European murder of a 16-year-old Ukrainian girl by a military-aged Iraqi migrant with expulsion orders—and the state’s decision to spare him prison—has become a symbol of a system that protects foreign offenders while abandoning society’s most vulnerable.
The victim, a teenage refugee who had fled the war in Ukraine, was trying to build a life in Germany through work and training. Instead, her life was tragically ended at a train station, one of the very public spaces that liberal-globalist elites insist remains “safe” despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
🇩🇪This is the 16 year old girl that was pushed in front of a train by a 31 year old iraqi asylum seeker in Germany pic.twitter.com/qLyrJC9X9n
According to prosecutors, the 31-year-old Iraqi migrant ruthlessly shoved the girl in front of an oncoming freight train. The train was traveling at high speed, leaving the poor, innocent girl no chance of survival, yet the anti-European state now claims the killer bears no criminal responsibility due to alleged mental illness.
Rather than facing prison and deportation, the Iraqi is being placed in psychiatric care— of course, at German taxpayer expense. This means no punishment, no deterrence, and no justice for the victim’s family.
AfD co-leader Alice Weidel criticized the decision sharply, saying that a deportable Iraqi migrant who killed 16-year-old Liana will face no real consequences. She argued that instead of prison and removal from Germany, he is being shielded by a finding of insanity and placed in psychiatric care at public expense—an outcome she called outrageous and deeply unjust.
The AfD co-leader wrote on X: “The Iraqi who was subject to deportation at the time of the crime and who killed Liana (16) by pushing her in front of a freight train will go unpunished: The public prosecutor’s office certifies him as ‘guilty but insane.’ No deterrent judgment, no imprisonment followed by deportation—instead, the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the perpetrator’s accommodation in a psychiatric hospital. This is a scandal!”
Der zum Zeitpunkt der Tat vollziehbar ausreisepflichtige Iraker, der Liana (16) tötete, indem er sie vor einen Güterzug stieß, geht straffrei aus: Die Staatsanwaltschaft attestiert ihm "Schuldunfähigkeit". Kein abschreckendes Urteil, keine Haft mit anschließender Abschiebung -…
What makes the case even more disturbing is that this killing was entirely preventable. The perpetrator had already been denied asylum multiple times and was under an enforceable deportation order that simply failed to be carried out.
Germany’s authorities had years to remove him from the country. Instead, legal loopholes, pro-mass migration activist lawyers, and an ideological fixation on “humanitarian” optics allowed him to remain.
His asylum story itself highlights the gross dysfunction of the system. He initially claimed he would be executed in Iraq for being gay, then later alleged abuse in a Lithuanian asylum center—claims that were never substantiated but nonetheless sufficient to halt deportation.
Despite these red flags, he remained housed in an asylum facility. Even after a prior conviction for sexually inappropriate behavior toward a woman, the punishment was deliberately kept low enough to avoid consequences for his immigration status.
This is not compassion—it is gross negligence dressed up as virtue. Liberal-globalist governments across Europe have created a system in which military-aged men from alien cultures are granted endless benefit of the doubt, while native citizens and genuine refugees bear the risk.
The public prosecutor’s decision to label the killer “guilty but insane” may satisfy the legal formalism of a system set up for Europeans, but it offends common sense. Mental illness did not push a teenage girl onto train tracks—policy failure and evil brutishness did.
Once again, the cost is borne by ordinary, law-abiding people. German taxpayers now fund lifelong, cozy psychiatric care for a man who should never have been in the country, while the victim’s family is left with grief and unanswered questions.
Political leaders, if you can even call them that, have offered typical vacuous words of regret and moral signalling, but regret is meaningless without action. The killing exposes a state apparatus that is overwhelmed, paralyzed, and utterly ideologically captured.
Germany’s interior authorities themselves have admitted that excessive numbers of migrants strain institutions beyond their limits. When systems fail under pressure, the weakest—women, children, and other refugees—end up paying the price.
This tragedy also exposes the moral inversion at the heart of Europe’s migration regime. A Ukrainian girl fleeing war was less protected than a man whose asylum claims had collapsed under scrutiny.
Supporters of mass migration insist such cases are “exceptions.” Yet exceptions keep piling up, forming a pattern that can no longer be denied.
Across Europe, train stations, city centers, and public spaces are becoming zones of fear rather than freedom. The promise that mass migration, mainly of military-aged men from alien cultures, would enrich society has been replaced by a reality of chaos and insecurity.
In a sane world, the state’s first duty ought to be to protect its own people and law-abiding residents. That duty is being systematically violated by elites more concerned with left-liberal globalist ideology than safety.
Justice for this beautiful girl whose life hadn’t even begun, will not come from psychiatric paperwork or official state condolences. It will only come when European governments finally abandon open-borders dogma, enforce deportation orders, and place the safety of their people above the illusions of globalist virtue.
Douglas Murray returns to the New Culture Forum to launch the first episode of our new flagship interview show, which is hosted by Emma Trimble. A wide-ranging discussion covering Britain’s perilous state, Islam, Christianity, Western Civilization, mass immigration, Iran and Israel and the cultural and soulful nourishment afforded by art, music and literature.
The Prime Minister of the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein was accused of calling for the censorship of the online platform Nius during a televised debate on ZDF, Germany’s second public broadcaster.
When asked on January 7 whether certain media and social platforms should be regulated, censored or banned, the politician, Daniel Günther, from the left-wing of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), replied: “Yes.”
He was referring to alternative outlets such as Nius, which he described as “enemies of democracy”.
Nius is an alternative online news platform with a large following, known for publishing content that often diverges from mainstream media narratives.
The site focuses on political and social news and takes a critical stance towards official institutions and channels. Some of its investigations have sparked serious allegations that the platform affects public debate and bolsters right-wing positions.
Among the most controversial investigations are those examining the politicised activities of a network of NGOs, some state-funded, which allegedly aim to maintain the political and cultural dominance of the Left.
“In Germany, there is a clear centre-right electoral majority,” said Pauline Voss, deputy editor-in-chief of Nius.
“According to many accounts, the CDU and Alternative for Germany [AfD] together exceed 50 per cent of the vote, which could enable local or national co-operation to implement the will of the voters.
“Yet every time the CDU opens the door to collaboration with the AfD, a powerful mobilisation by these left-leaning organisations is triggered. Many are state-funded NGOs, which, despite representing minority positions, organise mass protests to block the CDU,” Voss said.
“As a result, the CDU is intimidated and continues to form governments with left-wing parties, despite their weak election results.”
Voss, a former journalist at the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, has personally led numerous investigations into this NGO system, whose activities strongly influence the functioning of German democracy.
“It all began decades ago with the emergence of NGOs that received public funding to combat violent right-wing extremism,” she said.
“Over time, this system expanded not only in terms of financing but also in content, targeting positions that were not extreme but simply non-leftist.”
The real turning point came under governments said to be conservative, such as those led by then-chancellor Angela Merkel, which, according to Voss, allowed their cultural policy to be dictated by their left-leaning minority allies.
In 2015, with the launch of the programme Demokratie leben! (“Live Democracy!”), the then-German government promoted initiatives supposedly aimed at strengthening democratic participation, fostering civic values and preventing extremism. In 2025, Demokratie leben! received €182 million and, in 2026, approximately €191 million is expected to be allocated it.
“A large portion of these funds goes to campaigns critical of right-wing parties, known as the ‘fight against the right.’ Right-leaning organisations are practically excluded,” said Voss.
“This left-leaning NGO network mobilises every time the government considers measures that deviate from the left’s line, particularly in three sensitive areas: climate policy, migration, and, above all, the maintenance of the ‘firewall.’
“By ‘firewall,’ we mean Germany’s exclusion of the AfD, which prohibits any co-operation of other parties with it. Current polls see the AfD as the leading party in the country, with the CDU only a few points behind,” she said.
A striking example occurred in January 2025, after a massacre in the city of Aschaffenburg when an Afghan national attacked people in a city park with a knife, killing two – a 41-year-old man and a two-year-old child – and injuring several others, some seriously.
Following this incident, Friedrich Merz, CDU leader and now Chancellor, stated that he would push controversial migration measures “with the support of any agreeing party”, including the AfD, through parliament.
After these statements, there was major street mobilisation by the NGOs, supported by left-wing parties and the CDU quickly revised its position under the pressure.
“This has now become a recurring pattern, in which the CDU is frequently exposed to the influence of this NGO network,” Voss said.
“Every time someone in the CDU even minimally attempts cooperation with the AfD, a massive mobilisation by the NGOs is triggered, supported by left-wing parties and often positively portrayed in the media, bringing thousands of people into the streets, described as ‘civil society.’ This intimidates the CDU and prevents the lifting of the firewall.”
Despite its isolation, the AfD continues to grow in the polls, strengthened by its opposition status, which allows it to maintain its positions.
“The main victim is the CDU, which increasingly struggles from the government benches to implement its election promises, as it must constantly make compromises with its left-leaning allies rather than seeking co-operation with the AfD, with which it has far greater agreement on many issues such as security and migration,” according to Voss.
“This development could become very problematic for the CDU. If the firewall remains in place for long, there is a risk that more and more CDU voters will switch to the AfD, potentially rendering the party irrelevant.
“This is a risk the CDU increasingly faces unless it chooses to challenge the network of NGOs and left-wing parties,” she said.
In 2026, two important elections in the eastern German states of Saxony‑Anhalt and Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania are expected to be pivotal for the country’s political direction. In Saxony‑Anhalt, recent polls show the AfD leading with around 39 per cent to 40 per cent, with the CDU trailing at around 26 per cent to 27 per cent, a dramatic reversal from previous elections.
In Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania, the AfD is also polling strongly, often near the 30 per cent to 38 per cent range, again ahead of or close to the CDU and other parties.
These projections place the AfD in position to emerge as the largest party in both states, forcing the CDU to decide whether to maintain its longstanding refusal to co-operate with the AfD or to reconsider that stance if it wants to remain effective in regional governance.
The outcomes of these elections could reshape not only the political leadership of eastern Germany but also the broader strategic choices for the CDU at both regional and national levels.
Something extraordinary is happening in Portuguese politics. Not just remarkable, indeed—historically unprecedented. This coming January 18th, Portugal will hold the first round of a unique presidential election. For the first time since the foundation of the country’s current, left-wing-dominated regime, the idea of both candidates qualifying for the second round being right-wingers seems, at the very least, to be highly likely. It isn’t just that this has never happened before. It hasn’t. It’s what this reveals about the national conversation and just how completely the Left has now come to lose control of the narrative.
Like most of the West today, Portugal is undergoing a veritable political revolution. For five decades, the Iberian nation’s culture and institutions have been under the undisputed control of the Left. Unlike neighbouring Spain, where democracy came not through revolution but as a voluntary concession of the Francoist government, Portugal’s own experience was traumatic. Whereas in Spain the Right, having taken control of the state by force of arms, then magnanimously allowed the Left to return from the cold and back into the institutions, in Portugal, ‘democracy’ came as a result of the annihilation of the Right—narratively and sociologically. Having purged anything and anyone remotely ‘right-wing,’ the Left then imposed its worldview and political grammar on a despondent country.
Indeed, Portugal’s post-1974 Third Republic was defined by an artificial, boring, and solidly left-leaning equilibrium. The hegemonic Left, culturally progressive and economically clientelist, alternated power with a timid, technocratic centre-right whose primary ambition was to administer the same consensus with marginally better accounting. Presidential elections reflected this depressing stasis: grey, uninspiring, reassuring figures, designed to offend no one and to change nothing. In theory, the presidency acted as a moderating power. In reality, instead, it remained a ceremonial extension of the regime’s intellectual inertia and utter absence of ambition.
That era is now in the past, over and done with. Thank God for that. The rise of André Ventura—and of Chega—got the wheel moving again. One of the leading candidates ahead of Sunday, Ventura doesn’t just represent a party or a programme but a rupture in discourse, a rejection of taboos, and, above all, the return of politics as a conflict of ideas rather than consensus management. His presence alone has shifted the axis of debate to the point that even his fiercest opponents now speak in a language he helped impose. On immigration, Ventura now speaks for the people—other political actors have no choice but to offer their own imitation of Ventura, however crude or untrustworthy.
With André Ventura’s nationalist, anti-immigration platform poised to make it to the second round, the greatest proof of his success is how hegemonic the Right now appears to be. Other than the Socialist António José Seguro, no other left-of-centre candidate is polling over 2%. Instead, the field is dominated entirely by more or less coherent—and serious—right-wingers. These include former Navy Admiral and chief of Portugal’s COVID-19 vaccination programme Henrique Gouveia e Melo, market-liberal João Cotrim de Figueiredo, and Prime Minister Luís Montenegro’s own candidate, Luís Marques Mendes.
While only Ventura openly presents himself as a candidate of the Right, all these other contenders for the presidency are disputing the same political camp. Gouveia e Melo, who appears to be by instinct a man of the centre-right and who earned the respect of significant numbers of conservatives by appealing to his military credentials, foolishly tried to distance himself from this image during the campaign in the hope of seducing left-wing voters. This was a profoundly unintelligent move and will stand as a testament to his political inexperience. Had the admiral stuck to his guns and presented himself as a conservative, he would have captured the imagination of a Portuguese Right that has always admired the charisma of the uniform. Portugal has a strong tradition of right-wing caudilhismo; the almost monarchical image of a political soldier has been part of its imagination since the days of Sidónio Pais, the Army officer who, in 1918, attempted to overthrow the revolutionary republic and replace it with a conservative authoritarian state. Gouveia e Melo’s political illiteracy has almost assuredly cost him his lofty ambitions.
The liberal Cotrim de Figueiredo was one of the campaign’s surprises. Articulate, clever, with a solid private sector career, Cotrim galvanised the young upper-middle classes by promising them lower taxes and a smaller state. But, the youthful dynamism of his campaign notwithstanding, everything about Cotrim is hopelessly passé. His worldview is substantively obsolete. The liberal candidate speaks of globalisation and free markets at a time of geopolitical competition and protectionism; he promises low taxes when demographic crises and the imperatives of military defence make large government spending inevitable; he proposes individual liberties at a time the pendulum has shifted to individual—and collective—responsibilities. Like a distant star, the image he projects today is not the present, but the past. Neither he personally nor his platform has anything relevant to give Portugal.
Ultimately, in a competition between branches of the Right, the only offer that seems aligned with the spirit and the needs of the moment is Ventura’s. Gouveia e Melo, the conservative-looking, left-sounding Navy officer, seems like a candidate of the 1980s. Marques Mendes, whose electoral implosion will leave a decidedly bitter taste in Prime Minister Montenegro’s mouth, is a man of the 1990s. Cotrim’s Macronist mix of social and economic liberalism would have worked well in the 2010s. But that isn’t where Portugal, Europe, or the West is today. This is no time for anodyne, shape-shifting politicos; it certainly isn’t the right time for rooftop, cryptobro liberalism. In 2026, identity and sovereignty are what actually matter. There’s only one candidate saying those words in Portugal—and that’s Ventura.
Remember this disgusting scene at the United Nations in 2018, when President Trump warned Germany not to scrap their nuclear energy?
“Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course. Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers. It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe …,” Trump said.
The giggling from the German delegation at the United Nations was amazing; just look at the screwed-up face of that nasty chick on the left:
Now they’re not laughing so much anymore:
According to the Turkish Anadolu Agency:
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called Berlin’s exit from nuclear energy a “serious strategic mistake” and criticized previous governments for hastily shutting down the country’s last atomic reactors.
Speaking at a business conference in Saxony-Anhalt late Wednesday, Merz directed sharp criticism at the energy policies of his predecessors, including former Chancellor Angela Merkel, for creating the world’s costliest energy transition.
“It was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy,” Merz said. “If you were going to do it, you should have at least kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany on the grid three years ago, so that we would have had the same electricity generation capacity.”
He added: “We’re now making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world. I don’t know of a second country that makes it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany does. We set ourselves a goal that we now have to correct, but we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity.”
The net result is that Germany pays the highest energy prices in Europe, a victim of its own delusions about the capabilities of green energy, and its own Trump derangement syndrome. It was funny, wasn’t it, until the lights went off.
In 2024, an average of 59% of Germany’s electricity was generated from renewable sources. But during the winter darkness, this output is far from adequate. December 12, 2024, marked a low point, when only 18% of Germany’s electricity needs were met by renewables. The rest had to be generated by coal- and gas-fired power plants, and electricity imports from neighboring EU countries.
That expensive imported electricity comes mostly from France, which, voilà, produces it from nuclear energy.
The EU has a common electricity market. This means that during periods of high wind and sunshine, Germany is able to export energy, while during periods of low wind and sunshine, it increasingly has to import energy. Most of the electricity that Germany purchased in 2024 came from France, which meets 70% of its energy needs with nuclear power that is available throughout the year.
Seems the French were never stupid enough to get rid of their nuclear power plants or for that matter, their coal plants. But Germany did, in the name of virtue-signaling their greenness, and now gets its same nuclear energy in imported form, instead of the domestically produced nuclear power they had seven years ago. Talk about flushing money down the toilet.
Now they’re scrambling to reverse course, with zero planning for their energy needs having been taken into account. Somehow, Trump was right all along as they laughed up their sleeves, still insist on being considered Our Moral Leader, and at this point are experiencing schadenfreude.
In what is being hailed as a “landmark judgment” and “major victory” for women’s rights and workplace safety, a UK Employment Tribunal has ruled that a National Health System (NHS) policy allowing men in women’s private spaces is “unlawful” and “violates the rights of female staff.”
The court found that County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust unlawfully discriminated against and harassed female nurses by requiring them to share female-only changing rooms with a biological male.
“The Tribunal found that the Trust failed to uphold its legal obligations under the Equality Act by disregarding the nurses’ safeguarding concerns about privacy and dignity,” according to a press release from Christian Concern (CC).
The nurses were supported by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) and represented in court by Niazi Fetto.
“By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman … the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment,” declared employment Judge Sweeney and Tribunal members Denise Newey Malcolm Brain in their ruling.
They added:
By not taking seriously and declining to address the Claimants’ concerns of August and September 2023 and of 04 April 2024, regarding that part of the Transition in the Workplace Policy that afforded biological males access to the female changing room, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of creating for the Claimants a hostile and intimidating environment.
Female nurses had reportedly been told by NHS that if they had an issue with getting changed in front of a man who identifies as a woman, they should find alternative changing facilities, according to CC.
The Tribunal’s ruling concluded:
We were unclear what was meant by the submission that the policy was ‘lawful’ and deeper consideration of the argument led us to conclude that the policy of permitting biological males who identify as women to use a female changing room was not ‘lawful’.
The Tribunal further pointed out that the Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires an employer to provide changing facilities which “include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary or reasons of propriety.”
“This is a victory for common sense and for every woman who simply wants to feel safe at work,” said Bethany Hutchison, Darlington nurse and President of the Darlington Nursing Union. “Women deserve access to single-sex spaces without fear or intimidation. Forcing us to undress in front of a man was not only degrading but dangerous. Today’s ruling sends a clear message: the NHS cannot ignore women’s rights in the name of ideology.”
“We stood up because we knew this was wrong. No woman should be forced to choose between her job and her safety,” continued Hutchison. “This ruling is a turning point, and we will keep fighting until every woman in the NHS is guaranteed the dignity and protection she deserves.”
“This judgment exposes the extent to which the NHS hierarchy has been captured by extreme gender ideology and its willingness to sacrifice women’s safety and dignity in order to uphold it,” declared Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the CLC. “Allowing a man into a female-only space because he claims to be a woman violates human dignity, common sense, the law of the land and biblical truth.”
“The NHS and the government should now give up their sabotage of clear judicial decisions and abide by the law which acknowledges that men are men and women are women,” added Williams.
According to Christian Concern’s press release, “the Tribunal’s decision comes amid growing national concern about NHS policies that prioritise gender identity over sex-based protections.”
