UK PM Reboots Russiagate to Target ‘Brexit’

Not this again.

Russiagate played out slightly differently in the UK than it did in America. Here the symbol of a peasant uprising that needed to be put down was Trump’s victory while in the UK it was Brexit. Our political establishment really contracted Russiagate from the UK Labour Party, which the Trump administration has yet to hold accountable for its malicious election interference in two elections, and it’s no coincidence that Patient Zero was a former British secret agent commissioned by the Clinton camp to invent Russiagate.

That’s the context in which to understand Prime Minister Burnham’s insistence that Russia was responsible for Brexit.

Moscow was more keen on Brexit than on Trump (he hasn’t exactly been good for Russia which is one reason that Russia Firsters like Tucker Carlson have been going crazy), but using the Russians to delegitimize the will of the people was the kind of thing that the Russians themselves had been doing forever and allowed the security services to treat Trump and Brexit supporters like foreign enemies.

Despite opposing Brexit tooth and nail, Labourites officially remain committed to it because it had majority public support. Obviously that’s as insincere as their commitment to policing the borders and free speech. PM Burnham’s comments portend not only the dismantling of Brexit, but the weaponization of the security services against its supporters by a government busy pandering to China and every Muslim terror state in the world.

frontpagemag

UK: Migrant predator who claimed he could not commit rape because of ‘micropenis’ locked up

Illustration

An asylum seeker who claimed he could not have committed a sexual offence because he had a “micropenis” has been sentenced to 11 years in jail.

Hossein Mohmoudi, 36, who came to Britain after piloting a migrant boat across the Channel, was described as a “dangerous sexual predator” by the judge.

The court previously heard how the Iranian migrant had pursued his victim for around an hour as she travelled home from a Christmas celebration in 2024.

He follow her for three miles – at one point boarding the same bus she was on – before he tried to rape her in an alleyway.

Mohmoudi was only stopped when a passing cyclist intervened, Judge Sarah-Jane Griffiths told Snaresbrook Crown Court.

During the trial, he told the court he was incapable of committing the crime because he had a “micropenis”.

As a result of his claim, two doctors were made to visit him in his cell to measure his penis.

He also claimed he could not have committed the vile crime because his obesity, smoking habit and depression meant he had no ability or libido to have sex.

The Iranian asylum seeker also said he had talked on a fetish site because it was “helpful for my English”.

Judge Griffiths told him: “I do not believe for one moment that you were on that site to learn, or improve, your English.”

She added: “I also find that you were clearly able to have sexual intercourse.”

Judge Griffiths also told the court Mohmoudi had, just three months before the attack, “terrified” a woman by following her home and waiting outside.

She said: “I have no doubt you were wandering the streets in the early hours looking to see if there was anyone around you could take advantage of.”

The victim told the court she feared for her life during the horrific attack.

She said: “December used to be a time I looked forward to. Now, when the Christmas lights go up and the party invitations come in, my body knows the anniversary is coming before my mind does.”

Judge Griffiths sentenced Mohmoudi to 11 years in prison, with an exended licence period of four years.

He will serve two thirds of his custodial sentence before being assessed for parole.

Mohmoudi has also previously racked up five criminal convictions for assault and criminal damage in Germany, and served 10 months in jail for piloting the small boat which took him to Britain’s shores.

David Harounoff, defending, said the 36-year-old Iranian, had been targeted for protesting against the Islamic regime in his home country.

Det Insp Thomas Meaden, who led the Metropolitan Police’s investigation, said: “The victim has shown great strength throughout what has been an extremely hard experience. I hope this outcome provides some measure of justice.

“Mohmoudi is a predator who poses danger to any women and girls he may cross. Had he not been interrupted by a brave member of the public, he intended to commit further harm.”

gbnews

Italy: Volunteer migrant aid workers, who claim to have been threatened by migrants, are suspending their aid work for a week

In Trieste, the organisations “Linea d’Ombra” and “Fornelli resistenti” have decided to suspend their support for asylum seekers for a week following threats and verbal attacks which they attribute to a group of migrants.
These volunteers distribute meals in Piazza Libertà and provide medical assistance to people arriving via the Balkan route. Speaking to TriestePrima on 8 October, Lorena Fornasir of “Linea d’Ombra” blamed an individual already known to the police who allegedly incited others to intimidate the volunteers.

Gian Andrea Franchi, vice-president of “Linea d’Ombra”, quoted by “Secolo d’Italia”, refers to a former prisoner from Afghanistan and another Afghan national. According to him, this is a small group whose repeated threats have exacerbated the situation.

On October 7, a police check was carried out at the same location. According to a statement from the police prefecture quoted by TriestePrima, this was carried out in particular due to aggressive behaviour towards two journalists and a volunteer. Lorena Fornasir also reports having received threats on social media.

TriestePrima — témoignage des bénévoles, TriestePrima — contrôle policier  and  Secolo d’Italia.

fdesouche

Communist protesters scale Battle of Britain memorial during London pro-Palestine march

Screengrab youtube

Communist protesters have scaled the Battle of Britain memorial, chanting and waving flags, as a pro-Palestine march descended on London.

Clashes with police erupted and arrests were made around the monument at Victoria Embankment.

{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}

The bronze and granite memorial commemorates those who took part in the Battle of Britain, defending the UK during some of the darkest days of World War II.

Around 20 arrests were made during the protests, the Metropolitan Police confirmed.

Officers arrested six for criminal damage after they allegedly climbed the Battle of Britain memorial.

Police detained two others for allegedly refusing to remove their face coverings when instructed.

Another two were arrested over placards displaying support for the proscribed organisation Palestine Action.

The Met imposed conditions on both the march, organised by the Palestine Coalition, and the counter-protest to “minimise the risk of serious disruption to communities”.

Protesters, many wearing keffiyehs and carrying Palestinian flags, gathered on the Embankment before marching through central London to Whitehall.

The march proceeded from Embankment towards Westminster Bridge, York Road, Waterloo Bridge and The Strand before reaching Whitehall, where the rally ended shortly before 5pm.

Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn MP was among the speakers and was enthusiastically received with cheers and chants.

Mr Corbyn credited “our demonstrations, our marches” for inspiring Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s sanctions package against Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

A separate demonstration organised by Stop The Hate also took place outside New Scotland Yard.

Metal barriers and a line of police officers separated the two groups. As the larger pro-Palestine march passed, counter-protesters chanted “Shame on you”.

The demonstrations came just days as many marked three years since the October 7 attack on Israel, where Hamas terrorists massacred some 1,200 people.

“We know Saturday’s event, so close to the third anniversary of the terror attack on Israel, has the potential to have a greater impact on communities than the previous national marches,” Deputy Assistant Commissioner Carl Galvin said.

“We will also be using powers under the Public Order Act requiring anyone in the protest area wearing face coverings to deliberately conceal their identity to remove them.

“Under the Act, police are empowered to make arrests of those who refuse to remove a mask.

“We will do so if we see groups of people who refuse and are covering their faces with the intention to hide their identity, intimidate and commit offences. That is unacceptable.

“But for individual cases, officers must carefully assess why a person is wearing a mask and respond in a measured way.”

Police also imposed conditions on the Stop The Hate counter-protest, requiring participants to remain within a designated area outside the Metropolitan Police headquarters.

The Palestine Coalition, which organised the main march, includes the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), the Muslim Association of Britain, Friends of Al-Aqsa and the Palestinian Forum in Britain.

Meanwhile, thousands of people also took part in a national pro-Palestine march through central Edinburgh on Saturday afternoon.

After reaching the Scottish Parliament, demonstrators gathered for a rally on the lawns in front of the building, where stalls had been set up, and a series of speakers addressed the crowd.

gbnews

My Plan to Save Britain. From Remigration to Defeating “The Blob”

{YouTube CC-BY 4.0}

Douglas Carswell was UKIP’s first elected Member of Parliament, winning Clacton in 2014 (the seat now held by Nigel Farage). For the past 5 or 6 years he has lived in the United States, where he is C.E.O. of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. He joins us to discuss his detailed “manifesto” to save Britain. He also delivers his verdict on the state of modern Britain and the British right. Read Douglas’s Restorationist Manifesto, Nine Steps to Save Britain, here: https://restorationmanifesto.com/

French Defeat

by Lars Møller 

France—long the self-proclaimed guardian of high culture, of cathedrals and Cartesian clarity, of Enlightenment rationality and the moral vocabulary of Christian inheritance—now confronts scenes of disorder that would have been unthinkable to its earlier custodians. In the streets of its cities, young cohorts drawn largely from Muslim immigrant communities assert themselves with a confidence born of demographic momentum and ideological certainty.

The response of the governing class under Emmanuel Macron has been a studied detachment—the sociological equivalent of what clinical psychiatry once termed belle indifférence, the serene unconcern of the hysteric in the face of symptoms that disrupt ordinary life. This posture, cultivated since the retreat from North Africa, has allowed the progressive erosion of the nation’s historic cultural core while elites congratulated themselves on their openness and compassion toward the cultures of the world.

The withdrawal from Algeria and the Maghreb marked more than a geopolitical retreat. It inaugurated a moral and demographic inversion. Successive governments, first Gaullist, then Socialist, and finally centrist-technocratic, treated the influx of populations from former colonies as an opportunity for national renewal rather than a structural challenge.

The labor needs of the Trente Glorieuses shaded into family reunification, asylum claims, and chain migration. Official statistics remain constrained by the French republican taboo against ethnic or religious censuses, yet successive surveys reveal the scale of the change.

An Ifop study conducted in 2025 places self-identified Muslims at approximately 7% of the adult population of metropolitan France, up from 0.5% in the mid-1980s. Other institutional estimates for the broader population, including younger cohorts, range nearer 9–10%.

According to INSEE’s 2023 report (based on data collected in 2019–2020), 44% of immigrants identify as Muslim. While this religious affiliation remains robust into the second generation—encompassing 32% of all descendants of immigrants—the trajectory diverges sharply by lineage: Islam is maintained by 54% of descendants with two immigrant parents but plummets to 23% among those with mixed parentage (one immigrant and one non-immigrant parent). Among the population with no migration background over two generations, the figure drops to just 1%.

More consequential than sheer numbers is the character of the religiosity. The same Ifop inquiry documents a process of re-Islamization, especially among the young. Thus, 80% of Muslims describe themselves as religious, a figure far exceeding that of other confessions. Daily prayer has risen from 31% in 1994 to 62% in 2025, while Friday mosque attendance has more than doubled since 1989.

Among those aged 15–24, religious intensity peaks. Approval of positions associated with political Islam has roughly doubled since the late 1990s, with one in three expressing sympathy for at least one Islamist current, the Muslim Brotherhood foremost among them.

Parallel reports by senior civil servants and parliamentary groups have traced networks of “entryism”—the quiet colonization of schools, local associations, sports clubs, and municipal structures by Brotherhood-linked organizations seeking to establish parallel norms. Macron’s 2021 law against separatism closed some radical mosques and associations, yet subsequent Senate inquiries conclude that the advance continues under softer, more institutional forms.

Throughout these decades, the elite preferred the consolations of moral superiority. Multiculturalism was framed as the inevitable corollary of France’s universalist vocation. Skepticism about cultural compatibility was dismissed as residual colonialism or, later, as “Islamophobia.”

The Christian matrix of French civilization—its liturgical calendar, its artistic canons, its anthropological assumptions about the person and the family—was treated as a disposable historical residue rather than the living condition of national coherence. Church attendance collapsed, and the non-religious rose toward 37–40%.

In the banlieues, a different sacral order consolidated. The warning lights flashed repeatedly: the 2005 riots, the Charlie Hebdo and Hypercacher murders, the Bataclan massacre of November 2015 that claimed 130 lives, the Nice truck attack, the teacher beheadings, and the endless smaller stabbings and vehicular assaults.

Each time, the official response combined ritual condemnation of “terrorism” with renewed insistence that the problem was not Islam but its “instrumentalization.” The remedy lay in more social spending and more vigorous affirmation of republican values. The deeper civilizational question was ruled out of order.

The current phase has acquired a sharper edge. Street mobilizations of recent years—whether the 2023 riots following the death of Nahel Merzouk or the more recent waves of school blockades and urban unrest—reveal a tactical convergence between segments of the far left and Islamist networks.

La France Insoumise and its satellites have cultivated the Muslim vote through energetic defense of Palestinian causes and relentless accusations of systemic racism against the police and the state. Intelligence assessments and parliamentary reports note the opportunistic alliance.

The revolutionary left seeks the collapse of the existing capitalist and republican order; the Islamists, confident in demographic trajectory and doctrinal certainty, pursue the long-term implantation of their own social norms. Both sides find utility in the battle-ready youth of the cités.

Cultural symptoms accompany the political ones. In July 2026, a rapper performing under the name BORO700 released a track that explicitly glorified Mohamed Merah and Salah Abdeslam, with the refrain “Bataclan, je l’ai shooté à l’œil.” The song was chanted at lycée blockades, and the artist is scheduled to stand trial on October 21 for glorification of terrorism.

Such artifacts are not isolated provocations. They express a mood of triumphalist memory among certain youth cohorts who regard the 2015 massacres less as national trauma than as acts of righteous violence. The spectacle is distasteful in the extreme; it is also clarifying. A civilization that once produced Racine and Pascal now listens, in parts of its territory, to the aestheticization of its own slaughter.

Macron’s governing style has exemplified belle indifférence. He has spoken of separatism, republican principles, and the need to free French Islam from foreign influence. Moreover, he has enacted legislation and closed institutions.

Yet the deeper architecture of policy remains intact: continued high levels of legal immigration, reluctance to confront the fertility differentials and cultural incompatibility that drive long-term population replacement, and an elite consensus that any robust defense of historic French identity risks the stigma of the far right.

The president and his circle appear to inhabit a world in which the visible disintegration of social trust, the parallel societies of the banlieues, and the demographic forecasts of Pew Research and national institutes are secondary to the management of short-term electoral coalitions and the maintenance of a progressive self-image.

The indifference is beautiful precisely because it is cultivated: a philosophical pose that elevates abstract openness above the concrete survival of a particular people and its inherited forms of life.

Tragically, the process recalls the late stages of other high civilizations that lost the will to transmit their own spiritual and cultural substance. The French case is especially poignant because the nation once possessed an unusually articulate tradition of self-understanding—from the Capetian sacral monarchy through the classical age to the republican synthesis.

That tradition is now treated as one option among many in a marketplace of identities, while a rival monotheism, younger in its European incarnation and far more demographically vigorous, advances with the confidence of those who believe history favors them.

The left’s millenarian desire for the end of Western capitalist society finds an unexpected partner in an Islamism that views the same society as ripe for supersession. Both parties, in their different registers, welcome the disorder.

A nation that once exported its language, its law, and its arts is now watching, with eyes wide open, as the progressive barbarization of its public spaces and the hollowing of its historic culture unfold. The moral detachment of a conceited elite has become the psychological precondition of that surrender.

Civilizational recovery is illusory. As it is, the homeland of high culture continues its descent under the sign of a cultivated and lethal serenity.

americanthinker

France is burning. Europe will fall into darkness

by Giulio Meotti

They shout “wallah,” set schools on fire, douse teachers in gasoline, burn the faces of unsuspecting citizens, chase and beat police officers, and wreck the streets.

In 2005 it was the French banlieues, the working class suburbs, that went up in flames. Twenty years later, the flames are crossing the gates of the high schools. Two eras, and one generation that has been taught to hate not algorithms, but the West. The egalitarian school is a factory that manufactures nihilist wreckers.

The Dutch sociologist and demographer Jan Latten has just said: “We are at the beginning of major social unrest.”

Europe wanted a society without violence. What it got is a society without defense.

From France comes a sequence of unprecedented violence that is not taken from Fauda: it shows a teenager dressed in black attacking a woman with flammable spray full in the face, under the eyes of other high-school students in Marseille’s 7th arrondissement.

A police “sting-ball” grenade meanwhile exploded in a student’s hand; a woman lost an eye to a stone thrown by a student; a high-school student was seriously injured while handling an explosive device; an undercover police commissioner was chased and beaten unconscious in front of a high school; and in Marseille a principal and staff were attacked and doused in gasoline.

What is happening before our eyes has nothing of the usual banal student agitation. It is a dress rehearsal ahead of the election that matters most for Europe’s fate: May 2027.

What is happening in France concerns the entire West. These are extremely serious social-racial uprisings aimed at the destruction of our countries and our culture.

The wreckers want neither better schools nor more social benefits. They want to attack the countries that took in their parents and grandparents.

You do not negotiate with barbarians who aim at civil war. The attempt at integration and assimilation has failed.

They want a European intifada. Block the high schools today in order to block the country tomorrow. They are testing logistics, slogans, the ability to paralyze, and the reaction – or rather the absence of reaction – of the state.

On May 2, 2027, if Marine Le Pen wins, they will be back in the streets.

What is being prepared is not a social movement. It is a strategy of chaos.

When a state reaches the point of asking its population to barricade itself at home to avoid violence, that is a major alarm signal.

A French chief of the defense staff, Pierre de Villiers, who served under Macron, said: “We are in a strange period, and my fear is civil war.”

The question is no longer whether the situation is serious. Only the corrupt, the accomplices and the blind do not know it.

The truth, as usual, was spoken by Michel Houellebecq to the Financial Times: “We are witnessing a disintegration. It is a catastrophe.”

The question is: how far will the loss of control go?

Faced with these images, how many suburbs are ready to give battle? There, weapons circulate freely. Kalashnikovs, Magnums, grenades, hunting rifles. They are there, hidden in cellars the police cannot reach.

The times ahead are heavy with bloody possibilities.

Europe now has only two possibilities: either the states restore order or it will keep sliding toward South Africa’s story.

Every man for himself, the Third World for everyone.

The wind always carries the ashes of the fires.

israelnationalnews

When Anti-Fascism Declares War on Democracy

Ignazio Silone, an Italian politician and writer. He became famous during World War II for his anti-fascist novels. Silone was a fierce opponent of British agent Benito Mussolini and frequently warned that democratic and leftist movements could adopt authoritarian methods while claiming to fight tyranny. From 1946 to the 1970s, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature at least 13 times. Photo credit: Wikipedia, Unknown author,PD-1996

The Italian socialist writer Ignazio Silone, a former communist who broke with Stalinism, is credited with the observation—relayed by the Swiss journalist François Bondy after a 1944–45 conversation in Geneva—“If fascism returns, it will not say: ‘I am fascism.’ No, it will say: ‘I am anti-fascism.’”

Large sections of the political and mass-media class in Germany appear determined to fulfill this prediction in the wake of the election of a state parliament president from the ranks of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Magdeburg.

On 6 September 2026, the AfD won the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag election with 43.8 percent of the vote and 39 of 83 seats—the first time the party has finished first in a German state contest—while the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) collapsed to 17.2 percent. Turnout reached 77.8 percent. In the constitutive session on 6 October, the AfD’s Tobias Rausch was elected Landtagspräsident by secret ballot with 48 of 82 votes cast. The AfD and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which had pledged support, together held 44 seats; the surplus indicated votes from other parties. Hans-Thomas Tillschneider was likewise elected a vice-president.

Under long-standing parliamentary custom in the Federal Republic since 1949, the strongest parliamentary group nominates the president. When that custom produces an office-holder from an established party, it is treated as the fulfillment of the voters’ mandate. When the office-holder belongs to the AfD—classified by the Saxony-Anhalt Secret Service as confirmed right-wing extremist—the same procedure is denounced as a unique breach of taboo.

At the Bebelplatz in the heart of Berlin, the precise site where National Socialists burned books on 10 May 1933, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) declared: “What we have experienced today is a unique breach of taboo in parliamentary democracy, one we have not seen in this form for more than 90 years. Namely, that democrats have served as enablers for right-wing extremists and fascists.”

He and members of the SPD Bundestag group had marched from the Bundestag through the Brandenburg Gate to the square, several carrying copies of the Basic Law; Pistorius then led the singing of the national anthem which, to no one’s surprise, few knew.

The choice of location and the invocation of 1933 constitute a classic anti-fascist trope: the equation of any electoral advance by a party outside the post-war consensus with the seizure of power by the NSDAP. The trope collapses distinctions between a secret-ballot parliamentary vote conducted under the Basic Law and the street violence and Enabling Act of 1933.

Such statements amount to a declaration of war on the ordinary functioning of parliamentary democracy. They rest on the premise that the AfD’s program and personnel place it outside the constitutional order, so that any cooperation, even the routine election of a presiding officer, constitutes “enabling” fascism. The same logic has long underpinned the “Brandmauer” (firewall) policy and the intermittent campaign, recently amplified by Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD), to explore a ban of the AfD.

In addresses marking 9 November—commemorating both the 1938 Kristallnacht pogroms and the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall—Steinmeier warned that attempts to tame anti-democrats by granting them power failed in Weimar, insisted that democratic parties must not cooperate with extremists in parliament or government, and stated that a party embarking on “aggressive hostility toward the constitution” must reckon with the possibility of prohibition. Although he has not always named the AfD, the referent has been unambiguous.

Public broadcasting and large segments of the press have amplified the same framing, treating the Magdeburg outcome less as an electoral result than as a moral emergency requiring extra-parliamentary protest and historical analogy.

These are recognizable anti-fascist tropes. Historically, the Communist International and the German Communist Party (KPD) deployed “anti-fascism” against social democrats as much as against Nazis; in August 1931 the KPD joined the NSDAP in supporting a referendum aimed at bringing down the Social Democratic government of Prussia. After the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, anti-fascism was temporarily subordinated to the strategic needs of the Soviet Union. Silone’s warning reflected precisely this instrumentalization: a rhetoric that claims exclusive ownership of democratic virtue while expanding the category of “fascist” to include any rival who accepts electoral competition.

Contemporary variants include the routine application of the label to parties advocating stricter immigration controls or national sovereignty, the elevation of Antifa-linked violence—monitored by the Secret Service as a core field of left-extremist agitation involving assaults, arson, and intimidation directed at AfD members and others deemed “fascist”—to the status of legitimate resistance, and the demand that constitutional organs (courts, intelligence services, public media) act as permanent guardians against the largest opposition party.

The Magdeburg election and the Berlin protest illustrate the pattern. An office filled by secret ballot under established rules is redescribed as a 1933-style taboo breach because the winner’s party is politically unacceptable. Every state office and the apparatus of public broadcasting is mobilized in unison under the banner “I am antifascism.” The effect is to delegitimize not merely the AfD but the parliamentary mechanism that produced the result.

It will do them no good. In December, Saxony-Anhalt’s Landtag is scheduled to elect a new Minister-President. AfD lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund has indicated he will stand; an absolute majority requires 42 votes. Escalation of the anti-fascist rhetoric now narrows the room for any subsequent compromise or further escalation.

German voters are facing a conundrum in which the ordinary translation of electoral strength into parliamentary office is treated as an existential threat, while the language of anti-fascism supplies the justification for treating that translation as illegitimate. Silone’s pessimistic prediction is being tested in real time.

freewestmedia

Europe and Russia Flirt with Nuclear War

by J.B. Shurk 

War is ugly and awful.  People who experience it generally detest it.  In movies, soaring soundtracks make falling buildings and gunfights seem exciting.  In real life, people feel excruciating physical and emotional pains that never really fade.  It’s Hell on Earth.

After WWI, nations around the world celebrated Armistice Day on November 11, which later became known as Remembrance Day in many countries.  Remembering the dead was only half of the holiday’s purpose; it was equally important for the survivors of the Great War to remember the costs of total war, so that mankind would never unleash such cataclysm again.

We did not sufficiently remember the costs of global war, and twenty years later, humanity endured a Second World War far more deadly than the First.  After WWII, there was a movement in the United States to honor all veterans — both living and dead — on Armistice Day.  President Eisenhower signed into law a bill renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day, and we Americans have observed the holiday ever since.  

GROK youwatch

We should honor our military veterans every day.  By forgetting about Armistice Day, though, we stopped remembering the horrors of war.  November 11 was once a day for survivors to say, “Never again.”  It transformed into a holiday that celebrates heroes and sacrifice, while often burying the most important warning from past generations to the present: Do not repeat our folly.

War is tragedy, not entertainment.  Although I wish that we humans had longer memories when it comes to the psychological toll of mass killing, we barely know peace for half-a-generation before descending into Hell once again.  

Wars between belligerents who see no alternative to either victory or death are cruel, bloody affairs.  

Despite historical revisionism that often casts the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as indefensible, the enormous loss of American marines, sailors, and soldiers on scattered Pacific islands proved that the Japanese would continue fighting to the last man before entertaining any notion of surrender.  Both the Balkan Wars before WWI and the Yugoslav Wars following the Cold War were marked by ethnic cleansing, rape, and mass murder.  Every Islamic war against Israel seeks the Jewish state’s eradication; therefore, every war Israel fights is life or death for the nation.

The war in Ukraine has taken on a similar zero-sum seriousness.  Ukraine’s wartime president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has repeatedly insisted that there can be no peace until all formerly Ukrainian territory now claimed by the Russian Federation — including Crimea, which Russia has controlled since 2014 — is returned to Ukraine.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has said this demand is an impossibility.  

Ukraine desires membership in the European Union and the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization; Russia went to war in Ukraine, in part, to keep NATO’s thirty-year encroachment from reaching the entirety of its western borders.  

Ukraine and European members of NATO have described the war as an existential threat to all of Europe.  Russian politicians, academics, and pundits similarly describe the war as an existential threat to Russia’s future survival.  

Both sides seek what the other refuses to give.  A dangerous stalemate now exists. 

Although accurate numbers are difficult to obtain, both Russia and Ukraine claim to have inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties upon the other.  Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced, and Russia’s border regions have endured sustained attacks.  

Ukrainian authorities continue to press-gang young men into military service.  European Union countries that welcomed hundreds of thousands of fleeing Ukrainians back in 2022 are beginning to insist that young Ukrainian men be sent back home to fight.  European and American politicians have suggested that Ukraine’s legal age for conscription should be lowered and that Ukrainian women should be forced into combat, too.  Martial-law-President Zelenskyy has admitted that his country is struggling to replenish lost troops.

In Russia, there is less concern about fielding troops for what the government calls its “special military operation” in Ukraine.  There is widespread concern, however, that the military will have considerable difficulty defending the country effectively should E.U.-NATO expand the conflict beyond Ukraine — especially if Russia is forced to defend its Kaliningrad exclave situated between Lithuania and Poland.  

European politicians and military personnel have argued that taking Kaliningrad would effectively cut Russia off from the Baltic Sea and tighten the noose of a cordon sanitaire formed around Russia’s European flank.  Although the largest country in the world by territory, Russia’s moderate population of one-hundred-fifty-million puts it at a disadvantage against a European population three times its size. 

With real troop losses and the threat of future troop losses weighing heavily on the minds of decision-makers in Europe and Russia, what once was unthinkable has become more openly discussed: the use of nuclear weapons on the continent.  For eighty years, the taboo against atomic warfare has been so great that the United States and the Soviet Union fought a half-century Cold War in the shadows in an effort to avoid direct confrontation.  However, as Russia, Ukraine, and E.U.-NATO struggle for leverage and deterrence, the likelihood of nuclear conflict is growing.

Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a part of NATO, military representatives from all of NATO’s thirty-two members gathered in Kyiv this week.  Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, announced, “We are here in full strength with a clear message: The bond between NATO and Ukraine is stronger and stronger.”  

On Tuesday, the French military test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile over the Atlantic.  President Emmanuel Macron was present for the test and described it as “a new demonstration of the credibility of our deterrence” and “a clear message … for wherever it must be received.”  

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov agreed that France’s missile launch was a “loud and clear message.”  Peskov then warned: “Against the backdrop of such aggressive actions and such plans, Russia is on alert.  We are taking all necessary measures to ensure our national security at the strategic level.”

At the end of September, Russia sent official notices to NATO and Brussels warning that it would use nuclear weapons in defense of its territory, including Kaliningrad.  In blunt language that unnerved European leaders, Russia’s diplomatic message promised “Russian strikes against decision-making centers in the alliance’s member states right from the outset.”  

Russian Professor Sergey Karaganov — a highly influential foreign policy figure with close ties to both President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov — argues that “Russia must be prepared to use nuclear weapons.”  Because E.U.-NATO countries have population and economic advantages over Russia, Russia must use its “competitive advantage” in nuclear weapons to deter European military actions.  Karaganov insists, “Nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent major wars, but this only works if the threat is taken seriously.”  

The head of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy then takes direct aim at Europe: “Western European elites must be punished for their aggressive policies … and an EU that has lost its mind must begin to truly fear.”  Furthermore, “Seeking peace through non-nuclear means alone could prove far too costly for Russia.”  

Karaganov concludes, “If the current Ukrainian or German regime … were to acquire nuclear weapons, we would be obliged to launch a preemptive strike because we’d have to stop them.  It would be a short war, as a result of which these countries would cease to exist.”

There are those in the U.K., Europe, Canada, and America who believe war with Russia is inevitable.  Before we reach the point of no return, I humbly ask that people take a moment to remember why we all once feared WWIII.  Remember why mutually assured destruction was madness.  There is no shame in armistice when the alternative is Armageddon.

americanthinker

Germany: Islamist teacher allowed to remain in post

Illustration. Medforth AI

Ali F. from North Rhine-Westphalia is not just another teacher: not only was he regarded as a supporter of the Mullah regime, he was also active as a speaker at the Blue Mosque in Hamburg, which has since been closed down after being classified as anti-constitutional. Ali F. from Wuppertal was suspended for a time, but is now permitted to remain in post as a teacher. For years, children and young people were left defenceless against this radical Islamist; now he is simply carrying on in adult education. He previously worked at a vocational college. If someone from the AfD were to teach at a school, concerned parents would launch petition campaigns and demonstrate outside the school building, whilst the right-wing teacher would be mercilessly bullied out by the left-wing teaching staff.

Once again, however, the ‘Islamist bonus’ comes into play, meaning that Ali F. is allowed to carry on unhindered. The reasoning is that some of the allegations cannot be conclusively proven. Ali F. has already been given a warning for taking part in a demonstration and expressing his views. The 44-year-old had originally arrived in Germany as a young Lebanese refugee, later going on to work as a teacher of economics and the Islamic faith. Ali F. was even followed for four years as part of a documentation by Germany’s WDR broadcaster. However, contact with the broadcaster was severed in 2024 because he was linked to the Blue Mosque in Hamburg. He even appeared there as a speaker and described the mosque as his ‘favourite place’.

But when even someone like Nancy Faeser has the Blue Mosque closed down, that really signals something. Meanwhile, Ali F. was under investigation for incitement to hatred, with such remarks also being seen and heard in the WDR footage. Among other things, statements were made regarding the Hamas massacre in Israel. He was opposed to ‘sexual diversity’ in Germany, whilst expressing enthusiasm for the teachings of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei.

journalistenwatch