June 26, 2026 – A new movie, Citizen Vigilante, delivers the warning western governments desperately need to hear

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

On the landscape of contemporary film, Citizen Vigilante arrives less as entertainment than as a cultural artifact that captures a fracture already visible in official records across Europe. Directed by Uwe Boll and starring Armie Hammer, the movie follows a wealthy American veteran who becomes a masked avenger in European cities. He hunts violent criminals, rapists, and the corrupt officials who shield them. The narrative centers on gang rape and predation tied to unchecked migration from Islamic societies. It portrays indigenous citizens who never consented to the demographic and cultural transformation of their countries. These citizens watch perpetrators from migrant backgrounds receive lenient treatment or escape justice while natives who complain face prosecution or ruin. The film does not invent this world. It dramatizes one that government statistics, independent inquiries, and public polling have documented for years.

The core claim is straightforward. European elites imposed a civilizational transformation without asking the people who would live with the results. Citizen Vigilante gives artistic form to the resulting sense of stolen sovereignty. When the state will not defend the native population, individuals step forward. That premise rests on a factual foundation that begins with specific events and scales to national patterns.

Consider the night of December 31, 2015, in Cologne and other German cities. Coordinated groups of men, predominantly North African and Middle Eastern, many of them asylum seekers or illegal aliens, sexually assaulted approximately 1,200 women. Cologne alone recorded around 650 assaults, including 22 rapes. Police communications initially instructed officers to downplay the ethnic profile of the perpetrators. Media outlets followed suit for days. Only sustained public pressure forced fuller acknowledgment. The attacks were not an isolated outburst. They served as an early, public demonstration that the 2015 open-door policy carried immediate, foreseeable costs to women’s safety. Authorities had been unwilling to discuss those costs honestly beforehand, during or even after.

The United Kingdom presents a longer and more systematic record. Between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, hundreds of children, overwhelmingly white British girls as young as eleven, were groomed, gang-raped, trafficked between towns, beaten, and in some cases threatened with guns or petrol by predominantly Pakistani men. Taxi drivers and takeaway workers used alcohol, drugs, and intimidation to control victims. Police and council officials received repeated, detailed reports yet refused to act decisively. The independent inquiry led by Alexis Jay concluded that a widespread perception that authorities should downplay the Islamic dimensions of the abuse, for fear of racism accusations, paralyzed effective response. Similar organized networks operated in Rochdale, Telford, Oxford, Oldham, and elsewhere. Thousands more victims suffered under the same pattern.

Rupert Lowe’s Rape Gang Inquiry Report, released in June 2026, extends this record across the entire country. The 219-page document identifies evidence of identical grooming gang operations in at least 149 local authority areas. It traces the pattern back to documented cases in Bradford as early as 1955. Extrapolating from established local patterns, the report estimates at least 250,000 predominantly white British girls have endured repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, and in some instances forced Islamic conversion attempts since the middle of the last century. The gangs operated with the active or passive consent of public authorities. Police, social services, the NHS, and local councils treated victims as promiscuous or problematic rather than as targets of organized crime. Warnings were ignored. Files were not pursued. Perpetrators from recent migrant backgrounds were rarely deported even after conviction. The report describes this history as a rotting stain on Britain’s past and states that many citizens no longer trust the government to investigate its own failures without external pressure.

Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office data reveals a consistent national pattern since the 2015 migrant influx. Non-German nationals, who comprise roughly 15 to 16 percent of the population, account for approximately 35 to 42 percent of crime suspects overall in recent years, excluding pure immigration violations. The disparity sharpens in violent and sexual crime. In 2024, of 11,329 identified suspects in rape and sexual assault cases, 4,437, or about 39 percent, were non-Germans. Asylum seekers and recent arrivals have been overrepresented by factors of 3.9 to 4.2 times or higher in sexual offenses. Certain North African and sub-Saharan groups have recorded rates ten to twenty-one times the German average for rape and sexual assault in some datasets. Rape and serious sexual assault cases rose steadily, reaching 13,320 in 2024 with further increases into 2025 and 2026.

These numbers sit alongside a two-tier system of enforcement. Native citizens who post on social media about crime patterns or criticize migration policy have faced fines, job loss, or prosecution under hate-speech provisions. Meanwhile, many perpetrators from favored migrant groups receive de facto protection through institutional reluctance to name ethnic or cultural patterns. The asymmetry produces the precise sense of inverted justice the film dramatizes. Equal protection under law yields to selective enforcement that shields one set of groups while criminalizing dissent from another. (Read more: The Enterprise/Amuse, 6/27/2026)  (Archive)

I watched Citizen Vigilante on Amazon Prime (Banned in Germany).

The US/Canadian release is today. It is playing at a tiny number of theaters and is available on Amazon Prime, Apple TV, and Fandango. Amazon Prime charges $6.99 and you can watch it for 30 days.

It was entertaining. There definitely are not any boring parts. It is not a mega-budget movie from one of Hollywood’s Big Five. More like an adequately funded indie movie.

The character is like the Punisher, but with a wealthy background like Batman. Unlike Batman, there is no personal catalyst like the Joker killing his parents.

The main character is obsessed with wanting a high trust society. He is also angry about blind obedience to authority. He believes the people in power don’t give a shit about you and law enforcement and the justice system exist more to control the law abiding than to stop, catch, or punish actual criminals.

The film was effectively banned in “democratic” Germany by the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft [FSK]. This is Germany’s version of America’s Classification and Rating Administration [CARA].

Both the FSK and CARA are billed as independent, voluntary, private regulatory boards free of government imposed censorship.

However, in the case of the FSK, they have been empowered by the German government to completely block a movie from being shown in theaters, sold on DVD, or streamed in Germany. It is a way for a movie to be banned, while the German government says, “we didn’t ban anything, we had nothing to do with it.”

The FSK is allowed to simply refuse issuing any rating and it is illegal to exhibit, sell, or stream the movie.

What makes the film unique, and why it is banned in Germany, is twofold. It is inspired by real-life crimes. However, unlike the BBC in Britain or American media companies, the filmmakers do not race-swap all the non-White criminals into White people. The criminals in the movie are a mix of African, Middle Eastern, and White Europeans.

Second, unlike traditional vigilante movies, the main character goes after both the criminals and the people in the criminal justice system who coddle and protect them.

In one scene, it shows a judge explaining to the media how a group of teenage immigrant gang rapists are just as much victims as the 14-year-old girl they brutally raped. Sending them to jail would supposedly just make things worse. The scene is based on real dialogue from real judges.

I believe this is what sparked the meltdown at the FSK.

(Grok conversation)