In Vienna, a schoolteacher has experienced extraordinary difficulties because of the presence of so many Muslim students: “Vienna teacher warns of a path toward apartheid: ‘They view us as infidels,'” translated from “Wiener Lehrerin warnt vor einem Weg in die Apartheid: „Sie sehen uns als Ungläubige,“” Tichys Einblick, September 6, 2026 (thanks to Medforth):
A lack of German language skills exacerbates the problem, says Wiesinger: some children can technically decipher words but do not grasp their meaning, which is why she relies on images and gestures. Consequently, the Vienna-based teacher advocates for mandatory language proficiency assessments for three-year-olds—with penalties for non-compliance—alongside significantly increased funding for kindergartens. Early childhood educators, she notes, suffer from poor pay, oversized groups, and a lack of recognition.
Current figures underscore the urgent need for reform: the proportion of Muslim students stands at 39 percent in Vienna’s primary schools and 49 percent in middle schools. In the Favoriten district, the share of foreign students reaches 74 percent. Most recently, Vienna enrolled 1,700 children starting school in German support classes.
Susanne Wiesinger is well-meaning, but she thinks the problem is one that can be solved by remedial courses in German. That isn’t the problem. Even if they speak perfect German, these Muslim students will resist any kind of integration. They will continue to be hostile to the Infidels in whose midst they have landed. Learning the language will only make them better able to seduce or fool the Infidels — Muhammad himself said that “war is deception” — wielding words as fluently as do those non-Muslims who are native born. The well-spoken Muslim, a Zohran Mamdani or Mehdi Hasan, is more dangerous than one less linguistically gifted.
Conversations between teachers and students’ parents are particularly fraught; beyond language barriers, Wiesinger describes a fundamental conflict regarding identity. Many strictly religious families define themselves through their faith, customs, and clans. They do not want their children to drift away from this way of life. To them, Austria appears as a “culture of infidels” or a “hostile Christian country.” For this reason, Wiesinger explains, they remain within “their own” neighborhoods—whereas other immigrant groups integrate far better. The problem, according to Wiesinger, lies primarily within strictly Muslim milieus. She also points to the issue of patriarchal patterns: boys are predominantly involved in scuffles and instances of severe verbal abuse.
Wiesinger sees the problem, that Muslims don’t want to mix, to integrate, or even to live in non-Muslim neighborhoods. If they could, they would shut out the larger society, even as they rely on Infidels to supply them with all the welfare benefits that are the reason they settled in Austria in the first place. Yet she keeps pinning her hopes on teaching Muslims German. But a better command of the language will not change Muslim contempt for non-Muslims, for that “culture of Infidels.” Muslims complain about a “hostile Christian country” most unfairly. In truth, they have been allowed to settle by the millions in a country that at first was prepared not only to welcome them, but to support them in a host of ways. That complaint is backward: it’s the Muslims who have been and remain hostile to Austrian Christians.
Despite a track record that is not exactly positive, Susanne Wiesinger does not consider the future lost; giving up would mean allowing the emergence of neighborhoods around which “fences would one day have to be erected.” What is needed, she argues, is a long-term plan for Austria as a country of immigration—ideally one that transcends party lines.
Here’s the only ”long-term plan” for Austria as a “country of immigration” that will stave off demographic disaster:
End all immigration from Muslim countries. If immigrants are needed, find them among Catholics from South America and the Philippines, both Catholics and the Orthodox from central and eastern Europe, and Hindus from India.
Make immigrants eligible for welfare benefits only after they have lived in Austria, gainfully employed, for five years. That applies also to those who are already in Austria.
Deport back to their countries of origin all those migrants who have been convicted of crimes as soon as they have served their sentences. We already know the staggering rates of criminality of Muslim migrants; they will be the ones most affected by this policy.
That’s not what the well-meaning Susanne Wiesinger has in mind. She wants those German lessons to help Muslim children “integrate.” She expects them to cast aside the hatred they have been taught to feel for Infidels since they were toddlers. You and I know it won’t happen. And so, eventually, will she.
Rick Gordon says
I have not seen any western nation’s leadership with the balls to implement the suggested long-term solution.
Jon Sobieski says
Alice Weidel said if you want to call it remigration, so be it. We will call it remigration. What a great leader.
ploome says
send them to reeducation “camps”
look at what the Chinese have done with the Uyghurs
or Myanmar with the Rohingya
or Jordan with the so called balestinians
the Austrians know how to do that
Edmund Carey says
Hugh Fitzgerald’s suggestions are rational and well informed, and that, as everybody knows, makes them utterly unacceptable, and utterly politically incorrect. Suggesting that Muslims who want into Europe should have anything other than doors thrown open for them, and then be treated to everything they want when they get there, is inviting comparisons with Hitler.
I used to be hopeful that sense would eventually reassert itself and prevail in European countries, but I pretty much only despair now. By the time Austrians – to take that example – wake up to what they have done to themselves, their country will be a no-man’s-land of Sharia law and criminality, where mutilating girls’ genitals will be a common practice, and two thirds of European culture will have been banned because it is offensive to Muslim religious sensibilities.
This is another instance (honestly, another was not needed) of a phenomenon with regard to which the only hopeful attitude is hope that I am wrong.
Wellington says
Demographic jihad is more lethal than your standard kill the infidel (and many Muslims too) jihad.
rubiconcrest says
It is educational to study the Singaporean model vs Chinese one for dealing with their Muslims.
China, ‘coercion’, preferable to civil war.
Muslims are legally subject to security campaign; many detained without charge
They are held in camps, prisons, transfers an han settlement.
Their Mosques closed or Sinicized; traditional Islamic ideology treated as extremism risk
Use of mandatory birth-control drive coinciding with a collapse in official birth rates
Total information control over speech
The goals is to prevent the Muslims from sustaining a nation within a nation.
Singapore – Keep a 15% minority mixed and politically quiet to avoid civil conflict
Muslim Malay are Citizens with votes, NS, property
Malay are subject to public housing quotas so they cannot form enclaves
Only State-licensed Muslim institutions, limited Sharia family courts
No ethnic sterilization program
Harsh harmony laws on speech
Keep a 15% minority mixed and politically quiet
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Anschluss Zwei – w/ AfD taking over both Germany & Austria?