Birmingham councillors chanted ‘Free Palestine after a successful vote that could ban Israel-linked investments. Wikimedia Commons, David Stanley, CC-BY-2.0
Chants of “Free Palestine” rang out in the chambers of Birmingham City Council as officials celebrated a successful vote that could ban Israel-linked investments.
The city’s chamber erupted in raucous scenes as the motion passed this week by a landslide, 54 votes to 19.
Footage from the November 3 meeting shared online showed councillors leaping to their feet, chanting, cheering, applauding and raising fists as the vote passed.
The motion calls for a six-month examination of investments held by both the council and the West Midlands Pension Fund, with potential outcomes including engagement, exclusion or full divestment on human rights grounds.
Independent councillor Nosheen Khalid, who represents Alum Rock and serves as cabinet member for health and social care within the ruling coalition’s Better Birmingham group, brought the motion.
“Where money goes, responsibility follows,” she told fellow councillors.
“This is a day that residents should be proud of; it’s a day that we are certainly proud of, and it is one step closer to making the right decisions and the right choices for the people of Birmingham and the people beyond and the people of Palestine.”
Councillor Jamil Khan of Sparkbrook and Balsall Heath East seconded the proposal.
Their motion urged Europe’s biggest local authority to scrutinise its procurement, banking arrangements and commercial dealings for connections to companies allegedly involved in serious breaches of international law.
It also proposes writing to other local authorities on the West Midlands Pension Fund Pensions Committee to establish a cross-authority task group examining investment holdings.
Passing the bill does not mean an immediate withdrawal of funds connected to Israel; it endorses a formal process to scrutinise existing financial links and determine what steps might lawfully be taken.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism condemned the council’s decision as “certainly morally reprehensible”.
New shocking data revealing the overrepresentation of foreigners in serious sexual offenses and the disproportionate number of German victims in such cases, especially minors.
The data, from the German federal government, was revealed after a parliamentary inquiry from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Christopher Drößler. In cases involving at least one foreign suspect, the majority of victims were German, with the cases involving rape, sexual assault, and particularly serious sexual assaults, including those resulting in death.
The data, which was exclusively provided to German newspaper Junge Freiheit, shows that young Germans are victimized at high rates by foreigners. In cases involving at least one adult foreign suspect, authorities registered 800 minor victims, of whom 585, or 73.1 percent, were German. Where the adult suspects held only German nationality, 1,192 of 1,252 underage victims, or 95.2 percent, were German.
While German suspects appear to target those of their own group, foreign suspects appear to be very willing to target Germans at a much higher rate.
Country-of-origin breakdowns for underage victims show similarly elevated shares. In 2025, the proportion of German underage victims was at least 69.7 percent across the groups examined. Syrian suspects were associated with 69.9 percent German minor victims, Afghan suspects with 75.6 percent, Iraqi suspects with 74.7 percent, and Turkish suspects with 81.6 percent.
Remarkably, in all registered sexual assault cases involving Algerian suspects, the underage victims were German in 100 percent of cases.
AfD parliamentarian Drößler slammed the number of sexual violence offenses from migrants and the fact that
“Migration is a security risk for Germans,” said Drößler. “Minors, in particular, are victims of foreign perpetrators.“
He said that Germany’s youth deserve “a future in a safe homeland,” while adding that “responsible policies cannot avoid remigration measures.“
Data on sexual perpetrators and victims of all ages
The data involving foreigners and victims of all ages is not much better. Of 4,798 recorded cases with at least one foreign suspect, 57.4 percent, or 2,752 of the victims, were German, according to the data. By contrast, when suspects held only German citizenship, Germans accounted for 90.4 percent of victims (7,066 out of 7,817). In the remaining 751 cases (9.6 percent), the victims of German suspects were foreign.
Generally speaking, people who hold another citizenship besides a German passport are automatically considered “Germans,” despite their second citizenship. For example, if a Turkish citizen commits a crime but he also has German citizenship, he is only recorded as a “German.” This has often skewed data in crime reporting. The migration background of suspects is not recorded at the federal level and only available in a few German states.
Foreign nationals make up nearly 17 percent of the population, yet situations involving at least one foreign alleged perpetrator accounted for 38 percent of the sexual offenses in this category. This places non-Germans roughly 2.3 times more frequently among suspects than their population share would indicate.
The share of German victims remained high across the largest groups of foreign suspects.
Among those identified as Syrian, 451 of 749 victims were German (60.2 percent). Turkish suspects were linked to 340 German victims out of 546 (62.3 percent), Afghan suspects to 291 of 513 (56.7 percent), and Iraqi suspects to 146 of 263 (55.5 percent). Moroccan and Algerian suspects each showed 72.9 percent German victims, while the figure for Kosovo stood at 67.2 percent.
Only among Polish, Bulgarian, Iranian, and Ukrainian suspects did the proportion of German victims fall below 50 percent.
Pro-family advocates and legal experts are sounding the alarm after the Council of Europe issued a sweeping recommendation urging member states to impose “comprehensive sexuality education” from early childhood.
On October 15, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe formally adopted a “recommendation” titled, “Protection of children from violence through age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality education.” Invoking the necessity of shielding minors from modern digital hazards and sexual violence, the 46-nation body called on European governments to mandate comprehensive sex education across all public and private schools as well as informal youth settings.
“The recommendation applies to all relevant contexts where comprehensive sexuality education can be taught and learned, including formal, non-formal and informal educational settings under the responsibility of public or private entities,” the recommendation reads. “Member States should adopt the necessary legal or policy basis for the inclusive and accessible provision of this education to all children. De jure or de facto exemptions to comprehensive sexuality education undermine the protection of children from various forms of violence.”
“Comprehensive sexuality education should be provided to children from an early age and on an incremental and iterative basis to reflect and support their growing and evolving capacities,” it continues.
The recommendation also asks member states to “seek to promote equality and non-discrimination of all children … as well as children with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, or sex characteristics; and any intersection of these factors.”
The text recognizes that parents have the “primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child” – a clause inserted exclusively due to pressure from the Italian government – but stops short of recognizing parental authority in educational decisions.
“Parents and other holders of parental responsibility should be provided with … information about the content, objectives, benefits and potential providers of comprehensive sexuality education so that they can increase their own knowledge and support the children within their care,” the document reads.
Legal analysts from the Warsaw-based Ordo Iuris Institute have argued that the recommendation radically exceeds existing treaty obligations.
“An honest application of this requirement leads to the conclusion that it is not parents exercising their constitutional right to decide on the upbringing of their children who weaken their protection, but rather the recommendation itself, which in the name of unproven efficacy attempts to deprive them of this right,” Julia Książek, an international law analyst at the Ordo Iuris Institute, commented.
The recommendation builds on the 2007 Lanzarote Convention, a Council of Europe treaty originally adopted to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse. While the treaty called on governments to provide age-appropriate information about abuse prevention, with parental involvement, Strasbourg is now using that mandate to justify a much broader sex-education agenda, including topics such as gender identity, gender expression, and sexual relationships from an unspecified “early age.”
Furthermore, legal scholars note that the council’s claim that such programs are strictly “evidence-based” is contradicted by robust scientific literature.
A comprehensive 2016 systematic review published in Cochrane encompassing over 55,000 adolescents established that school-based sex-ed programs are not effective in reducing teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted infections, while an extensive study published in Health Economics in 2020 linked compulsory sex education to higher teen pregnancy rates while showing that parental opt-out clauses specifically mitigated those effects, including abortions.
Catholic organizations across the continent are mobilizing against what they denounce as a form of totalitarianism. The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe insisted that parents must retain absolute control over instructional materials and that sex education must never be made mandatory.
The move also collides directly with the directives of some national bishops’ conferences. In August 2026, the Polish Bishops’ Conference issued a solemn warning titled “The Young Person Deserves More,” according to which the state must assist the family rather than usurp its fundamental educational duties. While in Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin defended parents’ inviolable right to withdraw their children from state “relationships and sexuality education” and to seek for their children an education that provides a sound Catholic understanding of sexuality.
Having quietly killed free speech in Europe, several European governments are now zeroing in on independent media and journalists to end the free flow of information.
Banning independent media outlets and journalists directly would not work: it would just give the game away. Instead, softer, more indirect ways to get rid of alternative and independent media have been devised.
In Germany a draft bill has been put on the table that will, if all 16 federal states pass it, require big tech platforms to manipulate the algorithms in such a way that at least 20% of algorithmic recommendations for content must come from media outlets approved by German authorities. The point, we are told, is “diversity” – because nothing quite screams “diversity” like state-approved media.
Germany’s state-funded broadcasters, such as ARD, ZDF and Deutschland Radio, are automatically qualified, whereas “private outlets would have to apply to Germany’s 14 regional media authorities, which decide who receives it,” according to the news website Brussels Signal.
According to ReMix, “The proposed measure is already being slammed as a state-mandated propaganda effort that would force German citizens to view content friendly to the ruling establishment parties.”
Germany, in short, is introducing a system that will effectively ban independent journalism by using a state-imposed algorithm to force its extinction, while giving priority to state-approved content from corporate legacy media, which by virtue of its size and funding already plays an outsized role.
That is not all. Germany is reportedly planning to empower regional media authorities to conduct “indiscriminate mass surveillance” of online media, podcasts, and videos using tools such as AI, even when no complaint has been lodged. The aim, according to German news website Nius:
“The new law would empower media authorities to automatically monitor new media on platforms like YouTube, X, and Instagram and to penalize alleged violations of journalistic standards. This would effectively elevate one authority to a media control body — a move that would open the floodgates to political censorship. In the past, state media authorities have repeatedly taken action against media outlets they deemed undesirable.
“Even today, state media authorities use AI to scan the internet – officially in the name of protecting minors. In doing so, they repeatedly stumble upon statements they deem criminal, such as potential insults or incitement to hatred. In 2025 alone, the media authorities had around 4,000 posts deleted based on this information.
“What’s new is that media authorities will no longer only be able to prosecute illegal or harmful content without cause, but will also be required to automatically monitor compliance with journalistic standards of due diligence.”
It does not get much more totalitarian than that.
In the United Kingdom, the government is so concerned that too many people refuse to let themselves be brainwashed by state-approved legacy media that it is devising Orwellian plans to force them to consume it:
“Today (23 June) the government has published a Green Paper, Watch this Space: A new strategic direction for UK media, to consult on options to require social media companies and video sharing platforms to make sure that news content from public service media (PSM), which includes the BBC, ITV, STV, Channel 4, S4C and 5, and other trustworthy providers, is prominent and easy to find on their platforms. It could include, for example, a range of national and local news publishers all being more likely to be at the top of people’s social media feeds when they search for news. This will be key for helping to tackle mis- and disinformation, particularly during times of social unrest or crisis.”
Now we know why the government wants Big Tech to boost and prioritize public service media – because it really is state propaganda media.
According to recent reporting by The Telegraph, the UK government has been infiltrating so-called “public service” media with state-employed bureaucrats, who have been planted in these media organizations, including BBC, ITV and Channel 4, as supposed fact-checkers and journalists.
The state bureaucrats were embedded “to produce news and analysis on ‘high-impact, sensitive topics’ such as small boat crossings and the Covid pandemic” and to work on “verifying and preparing news bulletins.” According to The Telegraph‘s investigation, dozens of civil servants from government departments including the Home Office and Ministry of Justice had taken part since the scheme first launched in 2018.
Even more unsettling is reportedly that senior civil servants in the government’s employ were “lent to the broadcasters during general elections to dissect party manifestos and verify figures brought up in live debates.”
These ostensible “public service” media organizations, in short, functioned as organs of state propaganda, especially during elections.
Prof. Carl Heneghan, Director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, expressed concern over government employees working on coverage of Covid:
“Not only does it undermine the trust, it goes to the heart of the editorial problem. If you have people writing for you with competing interests, it won’t be impartial. It is the government organisation you will be partial to. You will want to toe the line. It’s unacceptable. This is a huge issue… If government employees are writing for the BBC it should be explicit who they work for so the reader can judge for themselves.”
The Telegraph described how one government employee had been tasked with “fact-checking claims about crime rates among different nationalities that were dominating news cycles”, for which he “drafted an explainer piece which went online and copy for my boss who went on the radio to provide this much needed context for audiences”.
It is not news that the BBC is a master of manipulation and disinformation. According to an internal BBC whistleblower memorandum from November 2025, the BBC doctored a speech by US President Donald J. Trump to make him appear to encourage the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot “by splicing together footage from the start of his speech with something he said nearly an hour later.”
It is also not news that the BBC, in the words of The Telegraph, “has become a tool for promoting anti-Israel bias,” and, “[i]ts flawed journalism is adding fuel to the fire of anti-Semitism that is glowing ever more dangerously.”
The news here is that government employees, for eight years, have been part of all this. How much of the manipulation and disinformation has been pushed by the British state? One-third of it? Half of it? All of it? Does the British public not deserve to know?
While this story has been embarrassingly underreported outside the UK, it ought to raise serious questions in every Western country about its own public service media — and who actually runs it.
In 2022, Republicans thought there would be a Red Tsunami. In fact, there was a Red piddle that didn’t even rise to the level of a puddle.
But yesterday, Democrats got that Tsunami. They flipped both the Senate and the House and did so massively. According to The New York Times, Democrats currently have 54-44 control of the Senate and 228-139 control of the House. Both numbers could improve for Democrats in the next days and hours. That’s not a tiny victory; that’s huge.
Some of the Democrat victories were more significant than others. Michiganders, by a large margin, voted for Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a man who advocates for socialism, but whose values (and friends and family) align with the Muslim Brotherhood. His presence in the United States Senate is an almost apocalyptic sign of what’s to come for America.
Meanwhile, in the “red wall” of Texas, James Talarico won, cementing transgenderism and smiley-faced socialism as Texas values. Additionally, Texas now has a Democrat governor, Gina Hinojosa.
In South Carolina, the uninspiring Darline Graham lost her brother’s seat to Annie Andrews, while South Carolina’s first district (which is purple) sent a hard leftist, Nancy Lacore, to the House.
So far, the real Dan Sullivan is still winning Alaska, but it’s by a very small margin.
Other unexpected blue victories: Iowa now has a Democrat Senator, as does Kansas. The semi-incestuous Troy Jackson ousted long-time Senator Susan Collins in Maine. Sherrod Brown is now the Senator for Ohio. And of course, the usual blue states are still blue. In other words, the blue wall held, and the red wall crumbled.
What does this all mean? I have thoughts, which I present here in no particular order.
The traditional media are still the most powerful force in America. Republicans love to point to the media’s shrinking audience as a sign of their irrelevancy, along with the growing voices of many podcasters and alternative media sites. However, all those alternative sites are fragmented. Audiences must find them.
The old drive-by media, that anything but mainstream organism, is still the largest coherent voice. If it weren’t, Trump would be one of the most popular presidents ever. His accomplishments have been extraordinary. However, the media still dominate discourse. Think about what Trump has done. On his watch:
Wages have risen
Unemployment is low
Inflation has slowed
The GDP is growing
Crime has dropped dramatically
The border is closed (which is what most Americans claimed they wanted in 2024)
Transgender is being removed from institutions (another thing Americans claimed to want)
Trump has ended smoldering wars around the world
Our genocidal enemy, Iran, is currently unable to field a nuclear weapon that could have reached half the world
China’s trade depredations have been slowed or reversed
And that’s just the short list. He should be the most popular president in modern American history. Instead, he’s historically unpopular. That’s not natural. That’s a result of relentlessly negative media. Sadly, that unpopularity inevitably trickles down to down-ballot candidates.
In 2012, we saw the reverse happen thanks to the media’s control over Americans’ political perceptions: Obama had a disastrous record, but the media got him a second term anyway. The media remain powerful enough to set the discourse and control American beliefs. Until that changes, we have a very big problem.
Red states that were thrilled to bring in businesses from across the U.S. sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. If you bring in tech workers, as Texas proudly did, you’re bringing in college graduates. And when you bring in college graduates, you bring in leftists. South Carolina, another destination state, has seen the same thing happen.
Just being a profitable state brings trouble. Red states love to boast that they’re getting blue staters fleeing their failed Democrat states’ social and economic disasters. Yes, some are truly conservatives, but others are like this California family:
There’s a reason Rush Limbaugh called these leftist economic refugees “locusts.” Look at what they did to Colorado, once a stalwart Republican bastion.
Over Trump’s next two years, I don’t actually expect much to change. As Obama said when he lost Congress in 2014, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”
Considering that, in both the first half of his second term, as in the first two years of his first term, Trump couldn’t get an ostensibly Republican Congress to work with him, the situation is static. Now, he still won’t be able to get Congress to work with him.
The problem is that this means that Trump will have had no long-term effect on American politics. As happened when Biden entered the White House, if a Democrat president gains the Oval Office in 2029, everything Trump accomplished will vanish with the stroke of a pen. That gives America all the stability of a crumbling third-world dictatorship, but at least for now, we won’t get two new states and a packed Supreme Court.
Speaking of the Court, here’s something I hate to say, but I’ll say it: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito need to retire instantly.
If something happens to these two elderly men after January 2027, there’s no way Trump can get a conservative Supreme Court justice approved in the Senate, and all bets are off for 2029. Trump has two months to ensure that their seats are aggressively conservative. If the Supreme Court goes hard left, the Constitution is judicially rewritten, and we’re on the way to Chavez’s and Maduro’s Venezuela.
Fortunately, because Democrats didn’t reach 60 seats in the Senate, they can’t do much, either. (That is, unless anti-Trump people like Lisa Murkowski help them reach critical mass.) The House, of course, will impeach every impeachable official in the Trump administration and investigate everyone else. They’d better lawyer up. It will be pure Lavrentiy Beria stuff: “Show me the man (or woman), and I’ll show you the crime.”
This time around, I sincerely hope Trump demands full due process, something singularly lacking in Congress’s previous show trials against him. At the end of it all, Trump, following in Biden’s footsteps, will be sure to preemptively pardon everyone in or near his administration, as well as all of his family members.
I know these election results were bad, but we cannot give in to despair. Despair is the enemy of functionality, and we must function really, really well if we want to put Marco Rubio (my current favorite) into the White House. And for God’s sake, when the still-all-powerful media say something nasty about Trump or any Republican, do your own research.
Finally, the next time elections come around, if you’re hesitating about voting for a Republican politician you don’t really like, remember Dr. Ben Carson’s wise words: “Unless Jesus Christ is on the ballot, you’re always choosing between the lesser of two evils. That’s why God gave you a brain.” There will never be a perfect Republican candidate, but I can assure you that there will be profoundly damaging Democrat candidates.
A German theologian has called on the Catholic Church to allow the ordination of both homosexual men and women.
In an essay for the latest issue of Herder Korrespondenz, Matthias Remenyi, who teaches who teaches fundamental theology and comparative religious studies at the Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Germany, argued that restricting the sacrament of Holy Orders to heterosexual men is “erroneous” and “toxic.”
He claimed the arguments against it would no longer be valid, stating: “It is no longer a question of theological knowledge, but rather of the reception of knowledge that guides action. It is no longer about which argument is better. It is about control over the discourse and power.”
“What are we to make of a sacramental sign – be it the masculinity or the heteronormativity of the ordained person – that is not only no longer understood by the majority of people but is also perceived as discriminatory?” the theologian asked.
He said he was not convinced by the magisterial text that rejects the charge of discrimination.
“Who could in all seriousness claim that a gay man is incapable of forming healthy relationships with men and women?” he asked, citing one of the reasons given for the ban on ordaining men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
He argued the theology behind these arguments promotes hypocrisy and double standards, “because, quite rightly and for good reasons, a large number of gay men are ordained, and a significant portion of our clergy is, of course, gay.”
Remenyi also called for female ordinations, claiming there were not sufficient theological reasons to deny women Holy Orders.
“Unfortunately, one must also apply the label ‘toxic’ to large parts of the misogynistic theological tradition that remains influential to this day, particularly with regard to the sexualized gender metaphysics that remains virulent beneath the surface and the associated patriarchal image of God,” he stated.
In an instruction from 2005, signed by Pope Benedict XVI, the Congregation for Catholic Education reiterated the Church’s position that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” cannot be admitted to seminary or Holy Orders.
The instruction states that “this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’”
“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women,” the instruction continues. “One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
In the case of homosexual tendencies that are “only the expression of a transitory problem,” such as “of an adolescence not yet superseded,” the document states that “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, reiterating perennial Church teaching that homosexual acts are gravely sinful, states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law” and “acts of grave depravity.”
Abuse reports have shown that around 80 percent of sexual abuse victims of Catholic priests have been adolescent boys, indicating that the vast majority of abusers had pederastic and/or pedophilic tendencies.
German theologians have been trying to get the Church to change its doctrine on homosexuality for years. Amid the German Synodal Way, more than two-thirds of the nation’s bishops voted in favor of a document calling homosexual acts “not sinful” and “not intrinsically evil.”
Regarding the teaching that only men may receive Holy Orders, Pope John Paul II affirmed the Church’s perennial teaching in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. He wrote: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reiterated in a Responsum ad Dubium in 1995 that the teaching laid out in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be “held definitively” and “understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.”
What happened in Poland on the night of October 30-31 represents an eloquent case study for both facets of the intractable conflict—a concept theorised by political psychologists such as Daniel Bar-Tal since the late 1990s—confronting postmodern society.
On one hand, it is a perfect example of the modus operandi of the wolves in sheep’s clothing who (still) make up the current political establishment in most states of the Western world. A textbook attempt at a coup d’état, executed perfectly up to a certain point.
Once in positions of power, this is what all these individuals with dictatorial and even sociopathic tendencies and ambitions do. With pathological hypocrisy, they attempt to overturn the constitutional order and alter the entire legislative framework to consolidate and perpetuate their power. Far removed from the power of the people, which is the only power that should matter in a democracy.
Why speak of hypocrisy? Because while meticulously pursuing their anti-democratic agenda, they pose as “defenders of the rule of law”—whatever that may mean, since a concrete, precise and universally accepted definition of this concept does not yet exist. It is considered an “essentially contested concept”, a term coined by British philosopher WB Gallie in 1956. This is precisely why everyone uses it as they see fit.
In our case, Prime Minister Donald Tusk attempted to forcefully impose a favourable majority within the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, aiming to ease his path ahead of the 2027 parliamentary elections. Defying the law, defying the Constitution, defying the President—the exact same sins he so serenely imputes to his conservative political adversaries.
These are the exact “arguments” weaponised by the European Commission, which applied a blatant double standard to the previous Polish government, as a pretext to cut off Poland’s access to European funds. Except that the bureaucrats in Brussels were wrong in the case of the Law and Justice (PiS) administration. Refusing to accept hordes of illegal migrants into your country is neither unconstitutional nor against the “rule of law”. Nor is protecting your own economy, your own citizens and your own professional sectors instead of those imposed by Brussels. In February 2024, barely two months after Tusk took office, the Commission announced it would unblock up to €137 billion in EU funds for Poland.
Now, though, we are genuinely dealing with a subversion of the Polish State by its own government. Through an “occupy-style” action, taking advantage of President Karol Nawrocki’s brief window away from Poland, Prime Minister Tusk sent his self-proclaimed “constitutional judges” to basically break into the Constitutional Tribunal. Following a meticulously premeditated plan, they attempted to unlawfully depose the rightful judges of this institution who are not to the liking of the current power in Warsaw. On the evening of October 30, the Tribunal’s longest-serving judge, Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, announced she had suspended its president, Bogdan Święczkowski, and taken charge of the court.
On the other hand, the course of events proved that Poland has a true president, devoted to the nation: Karol Nawrocki. Midway through his flight to Senegal, the President turned his plane around and marched straight to the steps of the Constitutional Tribunal. Despite initial opposition from the police forces deployed there in an underworld fashion, the President entered the Tribunal and “turned on the lights”, as we like to say. Thus, the tension was defused for the moment.
By refusing to swear in the disputed judges, the Polish President did not overstep his bounds; rather, he exercised a vital constitutional veto, utilising the presidency as an indispensable mechanism of checks and balances to prevent the packing of the highest court.
Meeting the moment, hundreds of Varsovians took to the streets to defend their Constitutional Tribunal and their President. Once again, Poland resisted.
The conflict, though, remains. For the “Long March Through the Institutions” will never stop, will it? This is the core tenet woven into the globalist, neo-Marxist worldview. Their underlying gospel. Everything old is bad, obsolete, must be deconstructed, broken into tiny pieces, and rearranged, because only what is new is good. Perennial, millennial values must be transformed into mere ephemeral social constructs.
Yet, in practical terms, the Long March (a slogan popularised by German student leader Rudi Dutschke in the late 1960s) and the cultural hegemony imagined by all neo-Marxist ideologues, starting with Antonio Gramsci, will only succeed if they meet no resistance. Only if the majority remains silent. Indeed, a lack of reaction, passivity and the ignorance of the many are assiduously promoted in the public arena throughout the Western world, rising to the rank of a social—societal—norm.
In countries like Romania, this phenomenon has already reached its peak, starting with the lack of public reaction towards the cancellation of the 2024 presidential elections and continuing with the election, in 2025, of a coat-hanger president, unfit from every point of view for the role of “head of state”. Countries like Bulgaria, for instance, which for decades sat somewhat in Romania’s shadow, have gained at least a moral ascendancy of honour by changing their political establishment.
To reiterate: Poland continues to resist, as it has throughout history. It is no wonder its President was once a champion.
At the same time, by persisting in this reckless and desperate endeavour, Donald Tusk will lose the elections long before the ballot boxes even open.
It is not only the Poles who will vote in 2027. The French will choose their president. Argentina will hold concurrent parliamentary and presidential elections. The Italians will elect a new parliament, as will the Greeks, Slovaks, Finns, Swiss and Estonians, among others. In many of these nations, conservatives and patriots are leading the opinion polls.
In his work Intractable Conflicts: Socio-Psychological Foundations and Dynamics (2013), Bar-Tal structured the stages of the full cycle of an intractable conflict as follows:
Outbreak—basically, an older misunderstanding emerges from latency and transforms into an open conflict between two camps.
Escalation—this is the longest and most destructive stage, where confrontation becomes central and hatred takes hold of societal life.
De-escalation—tired and exhausted, the factions become less aggressive and more open to dialogue and reconciliation.
Reconciliation—the final, most profound and lasting stage. The parties gradually abandon the ethos of conflict and, over time, learn to trust one another again and cooperate for a shared future.
After entire decades of being stuck in the second stage (roughly, since the 1960s), perhaps we are finally ready to enter the third stage. Perhaps the era of fools is waning, unelected bureaucrats will no longer rule, people will freely vote for their elected officials, and our societies will reconcile. Socio-psychologically speaking, this is the hardest part. But we must hope. On the night of October 30, Poland resisted. Perhaps European civilisation will resist too. And with it, the entire West as we know it.
Pedro Sánchez used to present himself abroad as a modern social democrat, a European progressive committed to climate action, gender equality, and multilateralism. That image was carefully cultivated. The reality of his government in Spain is quite different: a systematic weakening of democratic checks and balances, alliances with parties that serve as the political arm of a terrorist organization, governing agreements with communists, parliamentary deals with separatist parties that have betrayed Spain, a foreign policy subservient to Morocco’s interests, and an increasingly authoritarian style of government resembling the institutional capture practiced by Chavista regimes in Latin America. What is at stake is not simply left-wing policy. It is the transformation of a constitutional democracy into a system in which the law is bent to ensure one man’s survival in power—a regime change from liberal democracy to Bolivarian dictatorship.
Years ago, I warned my fellow Spaniards that Sánchez was following the same iter criminis—the sequence of steps leading to a crime—that Hugo Chávez had followed in Venezuela. In my articles, I called him “Hugo Sánchez.” Spaniards who read my columns at latribunadelpaisvasco.com thought I was exaggerating. Today, they are horrified to see how accurate my predictions have proved to be.
Sánchez became secretary-general of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) through a primary election in which, I contend, he committed fraud. Once he had secured control of his party, he reached La Moncloa, the Spanish prime minister’s official residence, in 2018 through a vote of no confidence based on falsehoods. Once in power, he could have chosen a coalition with a centrist party or with a communist party. He chose the communists and the political arm of a terrorist organization as his partners.
His survival in office has depended on successive agreements with forces that reject the constitutional order. The most serious is his relationship with EH Bildu, which I regard as ETA’s political arm. Its predecessor political movement had been outlawed until, in my view, former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero pressured the Constitutional Court to allow its legalization. Sánchez’s government has progressively normalized Bildu and facilitated the release of hundreds of terrorists convicted of blood crimes.
The second pillar of his political survival has been the Catalan separatist parties. The amnesty law benefiting those responsible for the illegal 2017 independence referendum and related offenses was not an act of national reconciliation. It was the explicit price of seven parliamentary votes needed to keep Sánchez in power.
Spain’s relationship with Morocco under Sánchez has been marked by previously unthinkable concessions. The first was his abrupt reversal of Spain’s traditional position on Western Sahara, effectively supporting Morocco’s annexation of the territory. His government’s acquiescence in, and assistance with, what I consider Morocco’s recent invasion of Ceuta marks another milestone in this submission. Along the way have come repeated concessions within the European Union allowing Moroccan products to enter European markets to the detriment of Spanish farmers and fishermen. I have no doubt that Sánchez and certain ministers are being blackmailed by Morocco following the compromise of their mobile phones. In my view, the extent of these concessions suggests that they have something criminal and deeply embarrassing to conceal.
But Sánchez is not content merely to betray Spain. He wants to turn it into a submissive nation. To achieve this, as I have argued, he has copied the modus operandi, the iter criminis, employed by Hugo Chávez in Venezuela twenty years earlier—a process that transformed Venezuela into a dictatorship presiding over an impoverished population.
The method of transforming a democracy into a dictatorship is no longer the brutal military coup of decades past. It is subtler and therefore more effective. It can be summarized in several stages: permanent moral polarization, institutional colonization, violations of the law enabled by politicized courts, control of the public narrative through the media, alliances with anti-system forces, and the normalization of exceptional measures.
This process does not require suspending elections or shutting down Parliament. It is enough to hollow out the institutions designed to restrain executive power, buy political support with public resources—I have always maintained that buying votes with taxpayers’ money is the most extreme form of corruption—and keep a sufficiently large segment of the population mobilized by fear of “fascism.” The result resembles the Bolivarian regimes more than a traditional European democracy.
Spain’s next general election is scheduled for November 29. Sánchez has framed it in an atmosphere of hostility, encouraging the left to stage massive and violent demonstrations in the French style—violence organized from within the state itself. He approaches these elections amid what I regard as an attempted electoral fraud, having granted Spanish nationality through the back door, contrary to the proper legal criteria, to hundreds of thousands of South Americans supposedly descended from exiles of the Spanish Civil War. In my view, this is an attempt to manipulate the election by arbitrarily altering the electoral register.
November 29 may be Spain’s last chance to avoid becoming another Venezuela in the heart of Europe. If Sánchez succeeds in forming another government, the West may have to say goodbye to yet another democracy and contend instead with an impoverished country that has become complicit in everything the West should oppose: twenty-first-century socialism and Islamist terrorism. Sánchez’s complicity with Hamas, in my opinion, is evident.
It all began with the March 11, 2004 terrorist attacks, when bombs exploded aboard several commuter trains in Madrid, killing nearly two hundred people and injuring more than a thousand.
I believe the truth was concealed by elements of Spain’s deep state. Many of us suspect that ETA supplied the explosives and logistics, while Morocco provided the scapegoats, making what we believe was a coup d’état appear to be an Islamist terrorist attack designed to damage the governing People’s Party (PP), which had been expected to win the election according to the polls. Within three days, the massacre produced an electoral reversal that brought José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to power.
That, in my view, was where everything began: the betrayal of the United States and the West, the alliance with ETA, the PSOE’s drift toward extreme socialism and its alliance with communists, and the first steps toward turning Spain into a twenty-first-century socialist dictatorship.
Nor should the American intelligence services escape responsibility in this matter. They have never used whatever information they possess to help Spain uncover the truth and establish what really lay behind what I regard as that coup d’état. Neither, in my opinion, are the CIA and other agencies blameless today, when I believe they possess information about Sánchez yet do nothing to assist a Western democracy in danger. Many of us would like to know why.
I hope these lines have opened your eyes to the risks that the United States also faces. If Americans do not want to see their country become another nation drifting toward twenty-first-century socialism, the lesson is right before their eyes. Voting for today’s Democrat party means voting for the same socialism that we are suffering under in Spain.
A sex offender convicted of multiple offenses is set to qualify for parole, suggesting he may be released from the women’s prison where he has been held, a new report reveals. Benjamin Charles Jones, who previously used the name “Lisa Jones,” but is now referring to himself as “Willow,” had only been released from a women’s prison one month prior to being arrested for the latest sexual offense.
In October 2024, Jones grabbed a 31-year-old woman as she walked past St. Mary’s cathedral in central Sydney. CCTV footage recorded the attack as Jones pulled her by her waist into a hidden corner. When she demanded to be let go, Jones replied, “I want to f–k you. Just let me f–k you.”
As the woman struggled to thwart the attack, Jones pulled down his pants and attempted to force an object into her mouth to silence her. When she was finally able to break free, she ran towards bystanders who helped her flag down a police car. After a brief search, law enforcement arrested Jones.
Newly released CCTV footage recorded the night of the assault shows Jones following the victim for approximately 20 minutes, and even running on occasion to keep up with her.
According to courtroom reports from the Sydney Morning Herald, Jones was recently diagnosed with schizophrenia. He reportedly told a psychiatrist that he lived in an “astral world,” and that the devil had made a bargain with his “sex spirit,” and forced him to “engage in sex rituals.”
But when Jones was standing before the court, he reportedly exclaimed, “I identify as transgender and queer… I had nothing to do with it.”
The woman shared the effect of the “unprecedented, unexpected, and aggressive act” in a victim impact statement she read to the court. “The experience permanently made me more aware of a risk in public spaces and more cautious in situations where I previously felt at ease,” she said.
AUSTRALIA: A transgender serial sex offender has been jailed after attempting to rape a woman in Sydney.
Benjamin "Lisa" Jones committed the attack just weeks after being released from a women's prison where he was serving a sentence for attempted rape.https://t.co/8ToHPOqgET
“I had always walked freely without fear or intimidation, and this experience fundamentally changed my sense of safety. I had become more prepared, but also more vigilant, knowing that one’s life can be suddenly disrupted by extreme violence, even when simply trying to get home.”
Judge Troy Anderson described the crime as “intentional and, frankly, very frightening”. However, during a sentencing hearing in September, he took into consideration Jones’ diagnoses of schizophrenia, gender dysphoria, historic substance abuse and depression and anxiety. In Sydney, the maximum penalty for rape, or an attempt to commit it, falls under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years; whereas Jones, a repeat criminal on the sex offender registry, was handed a three-year sentence. With time already spent in custody, Jones will be eligible for parole on November 21.
The serial sex offender had committed similar crimes previously. Jones has a prior record for sexually abusing a 6-year-old girl in Germany, for which he served six years in a male prison there prior to being deported to Australia in 2018.
In 2021, Jones was again arrested after attempting to rape a woman as she was walking home on Lennox Street in Richmond. While pinning her down, Jones repeated: “Why won’t you lay down and have sex with me?”
The woman had been in the middle of a phone call with her mother at the time of the attack. She began screaming her location into the receiver before Jones was able to disconnect the call.
He then put his hands down the woman’s underwear and tried to pull down the victim’s jeans, but she was able to successfully fight him off as bystanders came rushing to her aid. Jones was ultimately detained after some bystanders chased him down as he tried to flee the scene.
“I didn’t do anything, it was her fault,” Jones told the court.
Incarcerated women in Australia are protesting the transfer of a trans-identified male inmate previously convicted of multiple sex crimes.
Reduxx believes the transfer to be Lisa Jones, who was convicted of an assault on a woman in Melbourne last year.https://t.co/Cl11GMBjpN
While Jones denied accountability for the attack, he was sentenced to three years and three months. In July of 2022, shortly after sentencing, he was placed in a women’s prison to serve his sentence. Within weeks, female inmates at the Dame Phyllis Frost Correctional Centre launched a petition to have him removed out of fears for their own safety.
The petitioners addressed the Minister for Corrections, the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Corrections Victoria and the Ombudsman when asking for the matter to be handled swiftly.
“We feel threatened, unsafe, distressed and traumatised with this current situation. Accordingly, we demand that (the inmate) be immediately removed from the Murray unit,” the petition read. “We consider this petition a matter of urgency and would therefore appreciate your prompt response.”
According to the petition, many women prisoners have been victims of sexual assault and as a result, many “carry significant trauma associated with this experience.”
In addition to the petition from female inmates, women’s rights advocates contacted several politicians about the issue. However, “not a single one has done a single thing about it,” noted campaigner Sall Grover.
Meet Benjamin Jones aka “Lisa Jones” or “Willow”.
Benjamin, an Australian man, was convinced in Germany of sexually abusing a 6 year old girl and imprisoned there for 6 years. He was then deported to Australia. He was placed on the AU child sex offender registry.
Grover is an entrepreneur who found herself at the center of Australia’s gender identity debate after she was forced to defend herself in court over a period of years. Jason “Roxanne” Tickle filed a discrimination complaint through the Australian Human Rights Commission over being denied access to women-only application Giggle for Girls, which was founded by Grover. Tickle had been barred from using the female-only platform, intended as an “online refuge” for women, after Grover identified him as male based on a photo he submitted during the membership application process.
In September, The High Court of Australia denied an appeal lodged by Grover in the landmark case which ruled that “sex is changeable.” To date, Grover has had to raise over $1.5 million to cover legal costs, and confirmed to Reduxx that she has been ordered to pay a sum that will ultimately amount to around $500,000 in fees to compensate the legal team of the man who sued her.
Despite this, Grover has continued to raise awareness of the conflict between gender identity policies and women’s rights, and has now written to the Attorney General regarding Jones’ case. Grover is requesting a revision of the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), which was altered in 2013 under the government of prime minister Julia Gillard. The revisions to the SDA made it unlawful under federal law to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
“Will the Government introduce amendments restoring clear, biological definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Sex Discrimination Act, so that the legal category of woman is reserved for adult human females and does not extend to men who claim a female identity?” Grover wrote. “Given more than a decade of practical consequences, does the Attorney-General accept that the time for SDA reform has long passed?”
I have written to Australia’s Attorney-General regarding the predatory man who claims/has claimed to be a woman, asking how the sex discrimination act will be applied to him & what legal rights the rest of us without a special “gender identity” even have.
While it is unclear how many trans-identified male transfers are currently housed at Dame Phyllis Frost, Reduxx has reported on another sex offender who is serving a shockingly lenient 4-year sentence there for creating horrific child sexual abuse material of his own child and distributing it to a pedophile lover.
“Autumn Tulip” Harper was in a BDSM relationship with an American sex offender, who he referred to as his “Master”. The offender encouraged Harper to sexually abuse his daughter for his own gratification, and praised him for doing so, calling him a “good girl,” and saying how “impressed” with him he was. Through Discord, Harper sent media of himself abusing the child, which he was said to have done on at least 19 different occasions.
Yet disturbingly, the acts of child sexual abuse committed by Harper were reframed during court proceedings as a form of validation of his “gender identity”. The judge in the case, Nola Karapanagiotidis, allowed Harper’s supposed experience with “gender dysphoria” and “transphobia” to serve as mitigating factors, and accepted the argument from the defense that he had abused his own daughter solely to be “validated… as a woman and a sexual person.”
The debate over indefinite leave to remain is happening because of an absolutely dreadful betrayal of the will not just of Brexit voters but of those who voted for Boris Johnson’s government in 2019.
In 2010, 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands a year. The implication in 2019, with Brexit, was exactly the same.
Yet in 2023, net migration was nearly one million.
Our big fear about the Boriswave was what the enormous cost for this country would be. The cost in terms of numbers, the cost in terms of pressure on the NHS, the cost in terms of housing, of rental prices and everything else.
That’s why last September, Zia Yusuf and I gave a press conference in which we said indefinite leave to remain after five years in the country is not a right. Actually, it’s being abused by too many people who use it as a means not only to live on benefits for the rest of their lives, but also to bring family members in from across the rest of the world.
Controversial? Yes. Everything we do is controversial. That is, until everybody else copies it.
A few weeks later, the relatively new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood said pretty much what we were saying. She was worried about the Boriswave, worried about the huge damage the Tory government had done to the country. She wouldn’t remove indefinite leave to remain, but she’d kick the can down the road for at least another five years.
The tough new Home Secretary has found that her own left-wing backbenchers simply won’t tolerate it. Even the Prime Minister, at the time of the Makerfield by-election, said he was very much minded to support the reforms.
But Labour has now backed down. Health and care visa holders covered by the exemption will still be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Now, of course, comes the capitulation – or should I say the beginning of the capitulation.
How many people will go directly on to indefinite leave to remain and then citizenship one year later? It’s difficult to tell. Is it a quarter of a million? Is it the first quarter of a million? Does it open the door to legal challenges and many, many others? We will see.
Normal countries don’t give out work visas, allow you to bring dependants, automatically give you indefinite leave to remain and then, one year later, citizenship.
Our position is very clear. For anybody who goes through to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship under the scheme that’s been opened today, we will review each and every one of those grants of citizenship.
Our approach today is not one I would have wished to take. I always thought that the granting of British citizenship was a very special thing. But it has now been so devalued that we will need to review each and every case.
This is an edited extract of a speech delivered by Nigel Farage on 2nd November. Watch the full press conference here.
