Tag: extremism

Vienna Teachers Warn Of Rising Radical Attitudes Among New Immigrant Students

Viennese teachers are reporting growing challenges with students from immigrant backgrounds who are increasingly unwilling to learn German or adapt to local values, according to teachers’ union representative Thomas Krebs of the Christian Trade Unionists Group (FCG).

Speaking to Heute, Krebs said many of those arriving from conflict or crisis regions now bring radical beliefs that pose problems in Austrian classrooms.

“In the past, people fled from extremism. Now, many people come to us radicalized by extremism and spread these ideas here as well,” said Krebs.

He cited incidents of female teachers being disrespected or assaulted by male students and parents, saying such behavior reflects imported attitudes that reject gender equality.

“This disrespect ranges from refusing to shake hands to insults and physical assaults,” he added.

Krebs said the problem also affects staff relations, with reports of some male teachers refusing to shake hands with female colleagues for similar reasons. He warned that children from Western or secular families are sometimes treated as inferior by classmates, while those from conservative backgrounds who wish to integrate face pressure to conform.

“Students from Western cultural backgrounds are not seen as equals,” Krebs said, adding that liberal democratic values are often dismissed in favor of religious rules.

According to the union, teachers frequently encounter resistance to Austria’s educational standards.

“Our educational principles are often rejected. For example, religious content is prioritized over the content of the curriculum prescribed by Austrian law,” Krebs stated.

The FCG union is calling for new measures to address what it describes as a widening integration gap. It wants not only mandatory German-language instruction but also compulsory integration programs held outside of school, with attendance monitored by authorities.

“Effective teaching is only possible if there is also a willingness to integrate,” Krebs said. “The values of our democratic society must be conveyed in such a way that fundamental rights and culture are understood as an enrichment and not opposed.”

Recent data and testimony have reinforced concerns about language barriers and integration in Vienna’s schools. Of the roughly 16,700 first-graders enrolled in the city, more than 44 percent — about 7,400 children — do not have sufficient German skills to follow lessons. In the 2018/2019 school year, the proportion was 30 percent. Officials note that around 60 percent of these students were actually born in Austria, suggesting that many are growing up in what commentator Andreas Mölzer described as “closed parallel societies that simply refuse integration.”

“This means they grow up in families and closed parallel societies that simply refuse integration. Integration into our social system and our cultural fabric depends primarily on language acquisition,” Mölzer wrote in the Austrian daily Krone, warning that many such children risk “entering life without a qualification and with limited career prospects.”

Statistics from Austria’s middle schools show the same pattern. According to STATcube last October, only about 8,500 of Vienna’s 26,800 middle school students use German as their primary language, while 76 percent speak another language at home. In some districts, including Margareten, Hernals, and Alsergrund, that figure exceeds 90 percent.

Keep reading

Worse than Antifa: Inside the new breed of ultra-extremist groups dedicated to chaos, violence — and even alleged murder

Scram-tifa?

The far-left radical movement known as Antifa has been getting its own taste of cancel culture.

Just look at what happened on Aug. 19 in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights neighborhood. Masked, fist-clenched agitators belonging to the anarchist collective turned up to sow chaos — but locals banded together to confront the troublemakers, telling them to get lost.

Video captures members Antifa being told to “scram!” after they showed up in a Brooklyn neighborhood to sow chaos.

It was the 34th anniversary of the Crown Heights race riots and, instead of summoning a revival of 2020’s racial unrest, the Antifas slinked away as a crowd encircling them chanted, “F–k Antifa!”

Experts who track domestic terrorism and extremist movements aren’t surprised: Once the face of a grassroots leftwing insurgency, Antifa has lost its spark.

But experts warn that could be a dangerous thing — as the vacuum has given way to even more fringe and violent offshoots that are coalescing in the Marxist ether. And we’re only beginning to see the deadly fallout.

Last month, Benjamin Song, a member of the Antifa militant groups Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Association, led a group of 10 radicals — eight of whom were found living in a reportedly squalid transgender commune — in an armed ambush at an ICE detention center in Alvarado, Texas. The shooting left one officer injured.

Keep reading

Putin Criminalizes Online Searches for ‘Extremist’ Content

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday signed a law that criminalizes searches for “extremist” content on the internet, with fines of up to 5,000 rubles ($64) for each violation.

The Moscow Times noted that even some of Russia’s more enthusiastic censors are uneasy about the new law because they might get busted for seeking out extreme content so they can censor it:

Yekaterina Mizulina, head of the Kremlin-aligned Safe Internet League and a prominent advocate of online censorship, voiced unease over the bill earlier this month. She warned that it could obstruct the League’s work, roughly 30% of which involves identifying extremist content and forwarding it to authorities.

Mizulina claimed that the legislation could even put police officers at legal risk for viewing content as part of their duties.

In a similar vein, the head of Russian state propaganda network RT, Margarita Simonyan, lamented that her apparatchiks would be hindered in their quest to “investigate and bring to shame” critics of the Kremlin and the Ukraine war if they were “forbidden to even read them.”

The vote in the Russian parliament to pass the bill was more divided than usual, with opposition from factions that usually give Putin what he wants, including the Communist Party. An aide to a liberal Russian politician who protested the bill by comparing it to the Big Brother dystopia of George Orwell’s 1984 was immediately arrested.

Internet freedom advocates, meanwhile, raised the objection that “extremism” can be difficult to define and Putin is likely to stretch the term to include all criticism of his government.

Human Rights Watch pointed out that Putin has previously designated anti-corruption groups, LGBT organizations, independent media outlets, human rights groups, and political opponents as “extremists.” It is a safe bet that Russian courts will find most criticism of the Ukraine war to be “extremist” in character.

The new law empowers Putin’s enforcers to go after people who search for “extreme” content, not just those who create it. The chilling effect on dissent will be formidable in a nation where dissent was already half-frozen to death.

Putin’s digital minister, Maksut Shadayev, was predictably evasive when asked how the regime would define “extremist” content, or tell the difference between users who intentionally seek it out compared to those who stumble across it by accident. Shadayev said it would be up to prosecutors to demonstrate “intent.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said Putin’s new law was the “most serious step in censorship and the fight against dissent” since the 2022 bill that established 15-year prison sentences for disseminating “fake news” about Russia’s military activities.

“This vaguely worded, fast-tracked bill shows a clear disregard for open debate and create an even more repressive environment for the media and the public,” said CPJ Europe and Central Asia Senior Researcher Anna Brakha.

Keep reading

Extremist influencers ‘weaponizing femininity,’ warns Canadian intelligence report

Women’s workout routines that devolve into anti-government rhetoric. Makeup tutorials with anti-feminist commentary. Personal finance videos that blame immigrants for stealing jobs.

According to a Canadian government intelligence report obtained by Global News, extremist movements are “weaponizing femininity” on social media to attract more women into their ranks.

Prepared by Canada’s Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC), the report warns that female “extremist influencers” are using popular online platforms to radicalize and recruit women.

Their strategy: embed hardline messages within “benign narratives” like motherhood and parenting, allowing them to draw in women who weren’t intentionally seeking out extremist content online.

“A body of open-source research shows that women in extremist communities are taking on an active role by creating content specifically on image-based platforms with live streaming capabilities,” it said.

Keep reading

Extremism Masquerading As Activism

Earlier this month, the UK Parliament voted 385-26 to ban Palestine Action after members infiltrated an air force base and vandalized equipment. Under the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000, it is now illegal to fund, support, or even publicly approve of the organization. Arrests have already begun, sparking backlash from critics, who describe cracking down on pro-Palestine Action protests as “dystopian.”

Now, Palestine Action’s U.S. wing, “Unity of Fields” (UoF) faces similar scrutiny for similar behavior, including calling for police to be set on fire, cheering the murder of Israeli-Americans, traveling to Iran and publicly supporting them against the U.S., and advocating for “direct action” tactics including vandalism, violence, and full-blown terrorism. The question is: Should the U.S. follow the UK’s lead and formally ban UoF and similar extremist groups?

That decision rests with lawmakers. Before discussing the decision’s finer details, we must face a more basic truth: Organizations like Unity of Fields aren’t just saying outrageous things. They incite violence, empower extremism, and undermine the legitimate pro-Palestine movement.

Incitement, Not Free Speech

UoF frequently uses far-left, Marxist rhetoric, similar to Iran and Hamas, to disguise their extremist, authoritarian agendas. This dissembling has effectively led many American progressives to embrace organizations like UoF as ideological allies. However, UoF’s rhetoric crosses from critique to incitement – speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” – which the First Amendment does not protect. Among other things, UoF has:

  • Stormed Columbia’s library, distributing pamphlets praising terrorists
  • Called for violence during the LA riots
  • Celebrated the murder of Israeli-Americans as a “legitimate act of resistance” and called for the release of the murderer

UoF claims to lead the pro-Palestinian movement, yet it follows the playbook of online radicalization, prioritizing violence over progress. Consequently, UoF and similar organizations aren’t simply exercising speech; they’re deliberately manufacturing the conditions for violence, which has already paid off in a wave of antisemitism and skyrocketing political violence.

Keep reading

Silenced as Terrorists: Tulsi Gabbard & Global Collusion to Criminalize American Dissent

“This is just one of many alarming actions by the Biden administration—using government power to label concerned parents, vaccine mandate opponents, and other citizens exercising their First Amendment rights as potential domestic extremists.”

—Tulsi Gabbard, on newly declassified documents

In a time when speaking the truth can cost your freedom—or your reputation—what began as public health discourse has now morphed into a high-tech, globalized censorship regime. A growing body of evidence reveals how the U.S. and U.K. governments colluded with Big Tech and intelligence agencies to target American citizens—myself included—as “Domestic Violent Extremists” (DVEs), not for acts of violence, but for sharing dissenting views on COVID-19 mandates and medical autonomy. This is not hyperbole; it is documented history unfolding in real time.

1. The UK-U.S. Meeting that Sparked a Global Playbook

In August 2021, the Biden-Harris administration hosted a closed-door interagency meeting with the United Kingdom’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU). The intent? To replicate the UK’s aggressive censorship model across U.S. government agencies—including the CIA, FBI, DHS, and HHS—with the goal of suppressing what was euphemistically labeled “misinformation” [1].

The CDU presented its framework: create specialized units for censorship coordination, push legislation to force tech compliance, and form global partnerships to standardize speech regulation. These were not hypothetical strategies—they were blueprints for a censorship-industrial complex that rapidly took shape under the guise of pandemic response [2].

2. Domestic Dissent Reclassified as “Terrorism”

Just months later, in December 2021, an intelligence bulletin co-authored by the FBI, DHS, and National Counterterrorism Center suggested that narratives opposing COVID-19 vaccines and mask mandates could be signs of potential domestic terrorism. By lowering the bar from actions to opinions, federal agencies gained a mandate to surveil, deplatform, and investigate U.S. citizens based on speech alone [3].

This policy was not just chilling—it was dangerous. It criminalized questioning. It painted parents, doctors, scientists, and natural health advocates as threats to national security. It labeled a dozen Americans as part of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” and helped justify our systemic censorship and erasure from the digital commons [4].

Keep reading

Climate extremists make our kids despair — and groom them to join the left’s crusades

Extreme privilege and fame have never been a recipe for emotional stability, but today’s Hollywood offspring seem especially unequipped to face reality.

Case in point: Ramona Sarsgaard, the 18-year-old daughter of actors Maggie Gyllenhaal and Peter Sarsgaard, who was arrested this month for criminal trespass during a pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia University’s Butler Library.

This wasn’t her first foray into activism. Sarsgaard has been a committed climate crusader since childhood.

At just 13, she gave a speech at Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience award ceremony in honor of Greta Thunberg.

Like Thunberg, Ramona has built her identity around the belief that climate catastrophe is not only inevitable but imminent.

Sarsgaard marched in the Youth Climate Strike in New York and, according to her mother, is among the many children who “aren’t able to push out of their minds the dire situation that we’re in.”

She’s not alone: An entire generation has been raised to believe they are living through the end of the world — and their mental health reflects it.

Just this week Violet Affleck, 19, daughter of Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck, published an essay in Yale University’s “Global Health Review” describing a heated conflict with her mother earlier this year.

“I spent the January fires in Los Angeles arguing with my mother in a hotel room,” she wrote — in fights triggered by Garner’s shock at the devastation.

“As a lifelong Angelena and climate-literate member of Generation Z,” Violet explained, “my question had not been whether the Palisades would burn but when.”

She went on to call climate change an “existential and accelerating” crisis.

It’s clear she wasn’t just debating a hot topic with her mother — she was evangelizing a worldview that sees environmental collapse as a given.

If that mindset sounds extreme, that’s because it’s being carefully cultivated.

Affleck’s worldview was deliberately drilled into her by climate activists, who have groomed an entire generation to join their crusade. 

At institutions like Yale, climate anxiety is treated as a developmental inevitability.

An advice column in a Yale newsletter a few years ago instructed parents and caregivers to lead even the youngest children through therapeutic climate exercises, like imagining their favorite animal being impacted by climate change and speaking from its perspective.

Just imagine launching that conversation with your 4-year-old: “Think of Peter Rabbit. Now imagine Peter has run out of food and dies because he’s too thirsty, has no grass to eat, and no shade to take refuge in as temperatures soar.”

You couldn’t come up with a more traumatic lesson for a young child to engage in if you tried —yet the “experts” at Yale recommend it as a therapeutic template to explain to children that the world is ending.

Keep reading

Spy Agency Report on the Alleged “Extremism” of AfD Turns Out to Be So Stupid That it Destroys all Momentum for Banning the Party

In my last post, I wrote that “The campaign to ban Alternative für Deutschland is not going well.” Today – a mere 72 hours later – you could say that the campaign to ban Alternative für Deutschland is all but dead. This is because the people most committed to banning the AfD also happen to be some of the stupidest, most incompetent legal and political operators the world has ever seen. Their incompetence is so enormous that I am for once willing to entertain conspiracy theories as to why they might have undermined their own project. It is that bad.

Two weeks ago, you may remember, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser forced the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) to rush its long-planned upgrade of the AfD and declare the party to be a “confirmed Right-wing extremist” organisation. Word spread of a mysterious 1,100-page assessment, full of damning proofs that allegedly supported this upgrade. This document had to be kept secret, Faeser explained in an interview, “to protect sources and withhold indications of how our findings were obtained”. So espionage, much secret, wow.

The thing was, the anti-AfD dossier could not have been that secret, because somebody (almost certainly somebody in the Interior Ministry) immediately leaked it to Der Spiegel, whose journalists published various excerpts in an effort to make the case for how evil and fascist and Nazi and Hitler the AfD is. In this way the press could climax repeatedly in a wave of unceasing democratic orgasms over the renewed possibility of an AfD ban, even in the absence of the supersecret report.

The media circus dissipated quickly, however. The publicity campaign, the rollout – a lot of things went wrong, some of them inexplicably wrong. Still, I thought there was a 40% chance that the Bundestag would try to open ban proceedings sometime this year. That, as I said, was on Monday. What happened on Tuesday, is that Cicero, NiUS and Junge Freiheit all received the secret 1,100-page assessment (actually, it contains 1,108 pages) and published it in its entirety. Since Tuesday evening, a great many people have been reading this document, and they have been realising various things.

The first thing they’ve realised, is that it contains hardly anything derived from supersecret spy sources at all. It is little more than a collection of public statements by AfD politicians. Faeser’s sources-and-methods justification for keeping the report hidden was a total lie.

Keep reading

Why has an eco-extremist been given a royal seal of approval?

King Charles has pulled off an impressive PR rehabilitation since his Coronation in 2023. The British public now hears little about the aristocratic indulgences he was famed for as a prince, from his insistence on wearing ironed shoelaces to his portable loo seat. Nor do we hear a great deal about the quixotic beliefs of this self-confessed eco-nut who used to hold conversations with his plants. But sometimes the mask slips.

This week’s announcement by the King’s Foundation was one such moment. Charles’s private charity, which he established in 1990 to advance his ‘philosophy of harmony’, has named 35 of its favourite ‘changemakers’ under the age of 35 to celebrate the charity’s 35th year. They were identified, we are told, after an ‘exhaustive search’ across the UK and selected on the basis of their ability to advocate for the ‘change we want to see in the world’.

Of course, the ‘we’ in that sentence probably means Charles. At the very least, his underlings will have chosen figures likely to chime with his sensibilities. As such, these choices offer an alarming insight into the curious priorities of the reigning monarch.

One of the ’changemakers’ is environmentalist Jack Harries, who was arrested in 2019 at an Extinction Rebellion (XR) protest. Harries, making what he presumably believed was a brave stand against the evils of the fossil-fuel industry, glued his hands to the door of a hotel that was hosting a petroleum conference.

Although XR has been edged aside recently by other eco-groups like Just Stop Oil and Youth Demand, it pioneered the use of disruptive stunts and street theatre to draw attention to its mad demands. Its members would often paint their faces white and dress in red cloaks, performing choreographed dances in public, incanting about the impending climate apocalypse.

Keep reading

US Army Revises Standards On Prohibited Extremist Activity

The U.S. Army issued new, more specific guidance on Wednesday to address extremism within its ranks and ensure disciplinary action against those who engage with or promote extremist views.

Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth signed off on a pair of memos, published on June 26, that refine how the service will handle protests and extremist or gang activity within the ranks, and report suspected prohibited behavior. One memo a directive for “Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities“ and the other is a directive for ”Reporting Prohibited Activities.”

The memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities states that prohibited activity within the Army can include distributing extremist materials online. This new Army memo reinforces a policy approach articulated by the U.S. Department of Defense in a November 2021 memo, which states that “an action taken to replicate content from one online location to another” can qualify as distributing extremist content online. The new Army memo now states the prohibited online distribution of extremist activity can include liking, sharing, and “re-tweeting” said content.

“Military personnel are responsible for the content they publish on all personal and public internet domains, including social media platforms, blogs, websites, and applications,” the memo states.

The Army’s existing policy, updated in July of 2020, had previously said prohibited online conduct could include “hazing, bullying, harassment, discriminatory harassment, stalking, retaliation, or any other types of misconduct that undermines dignity and respect” but was less specific about online extremist activity, stating only that “military personnel must reject participation in extremist organizations and associated cyber activities.”

The new memo on Handling Protest, Extremist, and Criminal Gang Activities also states soldiers who “knowingly” display paraphernalia, words, or symbols in support of extremist activity, including on flags, clothing, tattoos, and bumper stickers—whether on or off a military installation—can run afoul of the Army’s prohibitions on extremist behavior.

Keep reading