Carte ethnique de la présence et des colonies allemandes en Europe à travers les âges.

Denmark publishes crime by country of origin, not nationality. I looked at 2021-2025 data. Overall: Somali-origin 7.8x the Danish rate. American-origin 0.34x. Thread of Top Five and Bottom Five.

18-jähriger migrantischer Islamist sticht Lehrerin, Hausmeister und Obdachlosen nieder und sucht Juden zum Töten welt.de/regionales/nrw/artic…

History's first trillionaire is a guy who catches rockets out of the sky with chopsticks and beams internet to every dead zone on the planet. Same guy ships cars that drive themselves, humanoid robots for the factory floor, brain chips that let paralyzed people move a cursor with pure thought, and an AI running on a supercomputer his team stood up in months instead of years. And the people crashing out about his net worth are doing it on the app he owns. The same app governments spent years trying to censor. You cannot legislate a rocket into orbit.

Europeans are awakening to the fact that when people live, dress and eat in a way that says "we are not like you!", it means something.

What bothers me the most about the Nowak case is how he had no chance. He was stabbed, and in other cases maybe he would have received assistance, maybe the perpetrator would have run away and then people would have helped, an ambulance would have come. But he wasn't just stabbed. Then a systematic process began. The knife was hidden by a family member. A second family member made the call to police and lied. This set in motion the police response which judged Nowak the perpetrator without interviewing him or anyone. He was cuffed and couldn't even speak as he was cautioned that he was arrested. It wasn't just the police response, it was that he lay wounded and dying and those around him were all a family, involved in hiding the weapon, lying to police and telling police when they arrived that Nowak wasn't stabbed. The whole system was against him, in his own country he was completely alone, surrounded, with no chance to survive. From the moment the perpetrator decided to stab him, he had no chance. The entire system worked against him. And when you see the video of the perpetrator and family, they act like this is a completely normal day...like they would just walk away and it was fine. No sense of shock, no sense of shame.

We will never forget. Upon taking office, a Restore Britain Government would have our Attorney General instruct the DPP at the CPS to explore bringing criminal charges for gross negligence manslaughter against the officers who handcuffed and neglected Henry Nowak in his final moments, as he choked to death on his own blood. Failing that, we would at the very least sack them and confiscate their pensions. Last of all, we would look into prosecuting all of the convicted murderer’s associates present on the night. Despite appearing to know that Henry had been stabbed, they not only failed to inform the police, but seemed to lie - as we now know from the bodycam footage - in telling them that he hadn’t been stabbed. An honest word could have saved Henry’s life. As such, we would look into charging every single one of them either with perverting the course of justice or assisting an offender or both. If the law needs to change, the law will change. The country will change. We will never forget Henry Nowak.

The EU No Longer Holds Back 🇪🇺🚨 I was just arrested at Munich Airport and prevented from leaving the country. My fundamental right to freedom of movement has been violated because I allegedly threaten the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany. Right before the Remigration Summit, they’re panicking. They’ve already lost every single debate and the culture war. Every European can see the devastating consequences of the population replacement with his own eyes. So they’re playing their final card: raw repression. They’re trying to jail Dries Van Langenhove, and now they’ve stopped me from leaving my own country. They want to scare millions of patriots into submission before they vote for change. But there’s one thing they forgot in their desperation: repression backfires. Every unjust arrest and every violation of our rights only draws more attention to our cause and brings more people to our side. But this only works with your help. Make them pay: share this post. Tell everyone what’s happening. And most importantly, join the debate and support @RESUM26. Because that is precisely what they are trying, and failing, to silence!

Why Isaac, Not Ishmael? Today, Muslims around the world celebrate Eid al-Adha, believing it marks the moment Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Ishmael. But this narrative, recast centuries later by Muhammad, hijacks the original account and distorts it. In the Bible, the foundation of both Jewish and Christian traditions, the son on the altar was not Ishmael, but Isaac. Ishmael was the result of human effort, Abraham’s attempt to fulfill God’s promise through his own performance, through Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant. It was a solution born out of impatience and control. But God’s redemptive plan was never about what man could do for God, it was always about what God would do for man. Isaac was the son of promise. He was born not through human scheming but through divine intervention. Sarah was barren. Abraham was old. His very existence was a miracle. Isaac represents grace, God doing the impossible, fulfilling His covenant not through man’s effort, but through His own power and faithfulness. The apostle Paul said that Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, represented Mount Sinai, where the law was given, a symbol of human striving, condemnation, and bondage. But Sarah, the mother of Isaac, represented Jerusalem above, freedom, grace, and divine sonship. Ishmael is law; Isaac is gospel. If God had asked Abraham to offer Ishmael, it would mean He was demanding a sacrifice born of human effort. But He wasn’t. He was foreshadowing the ultimate sacrifice, Christ, the Lamb of God, also born of a miraculous promise, also offered by His Father on a hill. Isaac was the prototype of substitutionary atonement. He symbolized the Son not born of the flesh but of the Spirit, God’s initiative, not man’s. To replace Isaac with Ishmael is theological vandalism. It exchanges grace for works, divine election for human performance, and the gospel for law. That’s why Isaac, not Ishmael. Because salvation was never meant to begin with our striving, it was always meant to begin with God’s promise.

Do you remember when Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent atheists of our time, suddenly found himself defending Christianity. He called himself a “cultural Christian” and openly admitted that he didn’t want to see Britain, or the West, become Islamic. It was the realization that Western civilization was built on centuries of intellectual struggle, Greek philosophy, Roman law, the Judeo-Christian moral framework, the Reformation, the Enlightenment. The freedom to doubt. The freedom to speak. The right to question sacred ideas without fear of death. These aren’t just abstract values. They are the pillars that hold up everything from your freedom to publish a book to a woman’s right to walk down the street uncovered. Dawkins, despite his atheism, understood that Islam is a threat to that entire project. Because Islam doesn’t enter a culture to coexist. It enters to redefine it. It doesn’t see secular freedoms as neutral, it sees them as filth. And when the West, in its confusion and cowardice, opens the gates and says “All cultures are equal,” it invites a force that sees that very tolerance as weakness to be exploited. Dawkins saw it. Many are starting to see it, and the West must wake up, if not to defend Christianity as dogma, then to defend the civilization it birthed, before it’s erased under the banner of submission.

Germany was Europe’s model nation. Now every pillar is cracking. Germany built a system for a world that no longer exists. What is the biggest threat to Germany’s future: deindustrialization, migration tensions, energy policy, demographic decline or weak political leadership?

We like this London.

Tu confonds deux choses, et c'est exactement le piège que la French Theory a tendu. Liberté, égalité, fraternité — égalité *de droits*, égalité *devant la loi*, égalité *de dignité*. C'est la promesse républicaine, et personne ici ne l'attaque. Le wokisme, ce n'est pas ça. C'est l'égalitarisme des résultats. Et l'égalitarisme des résultats, contrairement à l'égalité des droits, n'est pas un élargissement de la liberté — c'est sa négation. Quelques exemples concrets : — San Francisco supprime les classes de maths avancées au collège pour "réduire les inégalités". Résultat : les écarts entre élèves explosent, les familles aisées prennent des cours privés, les pauvres se font enterrer. L'égalitarisme a creusé l'inégalité. — Les politiques de discrimination positive à Harvard : étudiants admis avec des scores très en dessous de leurs camarades, taux d'échec dispropportionné, sentiment d'imposture, ressentiment généralisé. On a saboté ceux qu'on voulait aider. — L'aide humanitaire qui distribue du riz gratuit pendant 30 ans en Afrique : effondrement des filières agricoles locales, dépendance institutionnalisée. Donner un poisson, c'est empêcher d'apprendre à pêcher. Le wokisme ne détruit pas l'humanité dans le sens dramatique. Il fait pire : il dessert systématiquement ceux qu'il prétend protéger, et il génère du ressentiment des deux côtés — ceux qu'on infantilise et ceux qu'on culpabilise. La fraternité républicaine dit : tu es mon égal, donc je te traite en adulte capable. Le wokisme dit : tu es ma victime, donc je dois te protéger de toi-même. L'un élève. L'autre infantilise. Ce n'est pas la même chose, et confondre les deux est exactement le tour de passe-passe qu'on dénonce.

Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme). Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident. Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité. Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison. Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme. Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable. Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion. C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes. Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre. Alors pardon. Et au travail.

German Labor Minister: ‘No One Comes for the Welfare’ by Hugh Fitzgerald Defying reality, Germany’s labor minister claims that the migrants flooding into Germany are “not arriving for the welfare” — that is, they are not coming to take advantage of all the benefits that the generous German welfare state lavishes on migrants, but to find employment opportunities unavailable at home, or to flee from civil strife. But many of these migrants, who are overwhelmingly Muslim, choose to go to Germany because of its lavish welfare benefits, and once they come to Germany, they are in no hurry to be employed; they prefer to live on the government-provided benefits, which include free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, monthly stipends, and more. Nor is there any explanation from the labor minister as to why these immigrants choose to come to Germany, since she claims that they are “not arriving for the welfare,” rather than moving to another Muslim country if there is strife in their own. The only reason is that Germany provides a cornucopia of benefits; those Muslim states do not. Many of those asylum seekers have arrived in Germany from Syria since 2015, when Chancellor Angela Merkel opened wide the gates of Germany to a million migrants, when the civil war was going on. But with the end of that war, there is no reason for them to remain in Germany. Why are they not being forcibly deported? And why are Turks being given asylum? There is no domestic strife in Turkey. As for the Afghans, why are those fleeing the Taliban takeover being admitted to Germany? Would it not make more sense for them to move to Pakistan, another Sunni Muslim country next door to Afghanistan, where they would fit right in without the slightest friction? Germany now spends more than 30 billion euros a year on its immigrant population. No wonder the government has had to cut support for old-age pensioners and the disabled. Every euro spent on an able-bodied migrant who is not working but soaking the system is a euro less available to spend on the truly needy Germans. The anti-Muslim-immigrant party, Alternative für Deutschland, has pulled ahead of all the other parties in opinion polls. The people of Germany want a halt to that Muslim immigration, and only the AfD has the determination to enforce such a prohibition. When one adds up the amounts provided to migrants for housing, healthcare, family allowances, and those Bürgergeld monthly payments of 563 euros ($665) to each migrant, a family of four receives each year the equivalent of more than $50,000, a colossal sum.

It’s happened. Britain’s second-largest city has effectively fallen under Islamist control, with 13 Muslim independent councillors now wielding significant power on the council. Sectarian politics are in full swing, as demographic changes from mass immigration accelerate and more Muslims assume positions of authority. Great Yarmouth has shown us what is possible when native Britons mobilise. Rupert Lowe’s Great Yarmouth First delivered a clean sweep, proving that determined, organised local action can deliver landslide victories and restore a voice for the British people. Make no mistake: This is the battle for Britain. Every British man and woman must now set aside old divisions and unite to take their country back — before it is lost forever. The time for polite hesitation is over. The stakes are existential.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

Actually pretty accurate.

One of the biggest questions historians should ask is why the Brits, who founded such amazing nations -- CA, AU, US, and NZ -- came to the conclusion that they should cease being British and import tribal people incapable of creating their own nations?

POV: You’re an American tourist visiting London, Paris, or Berlin in 2026.