Three days before the thirteenth annual symposium of the Institut Iliade, a La France insoumise MP wrote to the Interior Minister demanding it be shut down. Five months earlier, the administrative court had already struck down an identical order. The legal defeat has not discouraged its authors. It has simply laid bare what the procedure is now for. What Thomas Portes wanted to keep out of sight, the April 11 symposium put on full display: a European right in the midst of consolidation.

I. What the left tried to ban

The ritual of preemptive censorship

On April 8, 2026, Thomas Portes, MP for Seine-Saint-Denis, sent a letter to Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez and to the Paris Prefect of Police. He called for the administrative banning of the Institut Iliade’s annual symposium, scheduled for Saturday, April 11 at the Maison de la Chimie. The grounds he invoked are worth weighing carefully: “calls to hatred and racist remarks liable to be made there.”

Liable. That single word carries the entire argument. The point is not to sanction an act that has been committed, but an act that might be; not to prosecute speech that has been uttered, but speech attributed to the speakers before they have opened their mouths. This is a departure from the rule of law, which sanctions acts, in favor of a preemptive policing of opinions.

The maneuver is all the more revealing given its place in a losing legal sequence. In November 2025, the Paris administrative court struck down a prior ban targeting the Institut Iliade and ordered the state to pay court costs. The decision should have set a precedent. It changed nothing. Winning the legal battle is no longer the point. The point is to make the event, year after year, costly, stressful, politically exposed. The ban, however doomed in court, has become an instrument of ritual harassment. The procedure says a great deal about the balance of forces: the left has nothing left to oppose the right with but censorship and violence.

A program no one dares to read

What was an elected member of parliament so afraid the audience might hear? The program, published several weeks in advance, contains none of the signals that a procedure invoking “racist remarks” might reasonably be expected to cite. Antoine Dresse on liberties without institutions. Laurent Obertone on the medieval mindset as an inner resource. Alice Cordier, of the Collectif Némésis, on women’s liberties as a constant of European identity. Jean-Luc Coronel de Boissezon on academic freedom. Philippe Herlin on economic liberties. Thibault Mercier on the twilight of liberties. Jean-Yves Le Gallou closes the day on how to escape what he calls “anarcho-tyranny.”

A program in political philosophy. The morning begins with a fable, recited by an actor. Musicians play guitar, violin, bagpipes. The day closes at eight in the evening with a grand ball. Thomas Portes did not want to ban what was going to be said. He wanted to ban what was being built. The two are not the same.

II. What it saw anyway

Context: Quentin

One backdrop must be named, the one the left-wing press erases entirely: the murder of Quentin, a nationalist student, killed by hard-left militants close to La France insoumise. The investigation has identified six suspects.

The event had its effect: it woke people up and drew them in. The stands saw new crowds. Young people with little prior political involvement enrolled in the institute’s training cycles. And when an MP from the party whose name the alleged killers invoked demanded the symposium be banned three days before it took place, the gesture was received for exactly what it was: a provocation, and an admission.

An audience no one wants to describe

The French press carefully avoids describing the people crowding Rue Saint-Dominique from half past nine in the morning, a stone’s throw from the National Assembly. An audience mostly of men and women, well-dressed, with a large share under forty. In the hallways one hears French, Italian, English, Spanish, Serbian, German. A Norwegian publisher runs a stand devoted to the writings of Fridtjof Nansen.

A cultural front taking shape

What changes everything is the international composition of the event. Five years ago, Junge Freiheit would not have sent two reporters to Rue Saint-Dominique, Compact would not have been there, and Benedikt Kaiser would not have been signing, in Paris, the French translation of his Gramscian analysis of the AfD’s success, six months after it came out in Halle.

Things have changed. Martin Sellner’s book Remigration sits on the stands in several translations. Jean-Yves Le Gallou, former MEP and a historic figure of GRECE and later of Iliade, has just published Remigration: Pour l’Europe de nos enfants, conceived as a “companion volume” to Sellner’s book. The preface is signed by Sellner himself. The exchange is no longer bilateral; it has become circular. Books travel, authors write each other’s prefaces, ideas are translated in real time.

The many structures involved no longer merely watch one another; they interpenetrate. This articulation is precisely the anchor point that a part of the European right has been looking for: a physical space where different sensibilities meet face to face: traditional Catholics, pagans of the Nouvelle Droite, liberal-conservatives, identitarians, nationalists. An intellectual ferment rather than an orthodoxy. Paris, once a year, plays that role.

The event’s cultural depth confirms that this is not merely a political platform. Paintings in the corridors, theater performed in pieces on the main stage, traditional music between sessions. Alongside the symposium, the announcement of a new “Nietzsche” training cycle for young Europeans was met with strong enthusiasm, a sign that intellectual demand is outrunning existing offerings.

The lineage is long. A guest interviewed by Junge Freiheit summed up the moment in two words: he spoke of “GRECE families” and noted that the present-day audience is “essentially the third generation.” Founded in 1968 by Alain de Benoist and a handful of others, among them Dominique Venner, to whose memory the Iliade was dedicated in 2014, GRECE was more than a circle. It was a school. Its first students are now between seventy and eighty-five. Their grandchildren, the people one saw on Saturday, are its living embodiment.

On the podium : Sellner, Boutin, Royer

Late in the afternoon, the roundtable “Confiscated liberties, redoubled commitment,” moderated by Pierre Larti, brought together Martin Sellner, the leading figure of the Austrian Identitarians; Nicolas Boutin, journalist at Valeurs actuelles; and Matisse Royer, founder of Voxeuropa. Sellner spoke in French, with a lightness of touch. He recounted the bans, the no-platformings, the bank account closures (116) he has faced in Austria and Germany. He called them his “decorations.” He closed, to general laughter, with a line that captures his method: “Danke, Antifa!” Repression, he explained, regularly misses its mark: it designates, it aggregates, it makes visible.

Boutin brought the perspective of a French conservative press that has been steadily rearming itself intellectually. Royer closed the roundtable with this intervention:

“If millions came, then millions will leave. If Spain lived seven centuries under Muslim rule, then nothing is lost. Europeans once ruled the world. We are conquerors, and we will become again what we are. And we will never apologize for it.”

The line places remigration, a term coined in France and theorized politically by Sellner, within a long arc of time. Seven centuries to reconquer Spain: the Reconquista is no rhetorical flourish, it is a reminder of what Europeans have done, and therefore of what they can do. The refusal to apologize closes the thought on an ontological register. One does not apologize for having been a people. One owns it, or one ceases to be one.

A telling absence

One final element deserves attention: the near-total absence of the Rassemblement National. It points to the enduring misunderstanding between the Nouvelle Droite and France’s main opposition party. Inside the RN, the intellectuals are thought too abstract, too elitist. Inside the Nouvelle Droite, the RN’s dédiabolisation is read as a dilution.

The takeaway is this. The Iliade symposium does not operate as an annex of any party. It operates as a school, independent and free. Which is exactly what makes it, in the eyes of its adversaries, a more formidable object than any electoral machine. An electoral machine can be beaten at the polls. A school can only be beaten by a better school.

What the day made visible

An MP writes to a prefect asking that a symposium be banned. The ban does not happen. The symposium takes place. Fifteen hundred people attend. Journalists from a dozen countries cross paths. Books in four or five languages change hands. What the Portes attempt meant to keep out of sight, it ended up confirming: that the space of European thought has quietly reorganized itself while the left exhausted itself demanding dissolutions. That there now exists, between Paris, Halle, Vienna, Milan, Madrid and Budapest, an institutional, editorial and human fabric that makes the old strategy of national isolation obsolete. That the “intellectual right,” whose death has been announced every five years since 1980, is in 2026 in better structural shape than it has been in a generation. There is no finer ratification than the one an adversary gives against his will.

Voxeuropa Herald is an initiative that shares the voices shaping Europe today: elected officials, essayists, philosophers, activists, artists and influencers. These portraits are collective responses to the crises shaking our Europe. Faced with the major upheavals of our times, Voxeuropa Herald gives a voice to those who, throughout Europe, share solutions and visions for the future. The message is clear: European realities call for European responses.

Source photo : Junge Freiheit

Subscribe now

Voxeuropa Herald is an initiative that shares the voices shaping Europe today: elected officials, essayists, philosophers, activists, artists and influencers. These portraits are collective responses to the crises shaking our Europe. Faced with the major upheavals of our times, Voxeuropa Herald gives a voice to those who, throughout Europe, share solutions and visions for the future. The message is clear : European realities call for European responses.

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

In the early hours of the 20 of March a group of at least 5 leftist extremists broke into a Czech arms manufacturer LLP Holdings, stole classified documents doused the production hall in petrol and set it all alight, causing €16 million in damages.

Their reasoning ?

They believed the manufacturer worked in cooperation with the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit systems, this was not at all the case. The manufacturer made drones solely for the European market, many of these drones actually ended up being used by Ukrainian forces. Which the terror suspects were ironically vocal advocates for. Here you can see the mind virus taking hold over 2 years. Destroying your own beauty is the ultimate form of leftist liberation after all.

The supposed Berlin connection

The German Federal Government provides the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation with

tens of millions of euros annually. In 2024, this support amounted to over 71 million euros. This foundation has long been active in the Czech Republic as well, where it provides financial support to organisations that pursue an extreme left-wing and radical internationalist agenda.

Among past recipients of these funds was the non-profit publishing organisation Druhá směna, where one of the suspected terrorists, transgender, Egyptian-born, Saudi-raised Youssef M served as an active writer. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation was also reportedly involved in the organisation’s establishment.

Another suspect, Anežka B, was an avid supporter of foundation-funded events, first promoting them publicly at the age of just 15. Her trajectory illustrates a clear and disturbing path of radicalisation that culminated in the attack of 20 March.

The fact that German public funds contribute in the long term to building an ideological breeding ground for radicalisation on the territory of the Czech Republic, from which the suspects for this serious violent crime also emerged, must not be ignored.

In a letter to the President of the Bundestag Julia Klöckner, Czech member of Parliament and chairman of the Svobodni party Libor Vondráček wrote

“I consider it unacceptable that funds from German taxpayers – even indirectly – contribute to the fanaticisation of young people, which in extreme cases can escalate into violence against private property and the security of citizens of a sovereign Member State of the European Union.

Therefore, Madam President, as the highest representative of the German Parliament, I urgently ask you to support or initiate the following steps in the Bundestag :

• An interpellation of the Federal Government regarding existing control mechanisms and oversight of the foreign activities of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and other political foundations,
• A tightening of the rules for granting public subsidies so that these funds do not end up with institutions that promote radicalism and hateful ideologies or justify violence,
• The enforcement of full transparency of financial flows between German state foundations and organisations operating in the Czech Republic and other neighbouring countries.”

The fire in Pardubice has been extinguished, but the political flames are only beginning to spread. Whether Berlin responds with transparency or deflection will reveal much about their intentions. If the unholy CDU-SPD alliance truly values “European solidarity,” it must prove it by ending the supposed export of radicalism that undermines the very democracies it claims to defend.

Czech authorities will pursue justice through the courts.

Prague’s political class must now pursue justice through its allies.

By Martin Kuziel

Source photos : Oleksandr Yaremenko - CTK

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Long hailed as a model of openness, Sweden is continuing its migration shift. The government has presented a bill that could mark a profound break: from now on, foreigners residing in the country will be required to demonstrate that they lead an “honest life,” under threat of losing their residence permits.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell sums up the spirit of the bill: “Respecting the law is not enough; one must also contribute positively to society.” This approach reflects a desire to consider the individual as a whole—through civic and social behavior, not just legal compliance. It expands the grounds for expulsion to a series of behaviors previously considered peripheral: unpaid debts, social welfare fraud, undeclared work, or failure to comply with administrative decisions. The government also proposes that residence permits could be revoked in additional situations. If adopted by Parliament, these changes would come into effect on July 13.

The bill signals a subtle yet major shift: the right to remain on the territory would no longer depend solely on administrative status or the absence of criminal convictions, but on a broader evaluation of behavior. In other words, long-term residence in a country would no longer be a given; it would be an implicit commitment: to follow the rules, but also not to burden the system or evade it.

In a Europe facing continuous migratory flows and increasing pressure on social systems, this logic is gaining ground: rights imply concrete and verifiable duties.

The notion of an “honest life” is deliberately broad. And this is precisely what gives it weight. Member of Parliament Ludvig Aspling, linked to the Sweden Democrats, acknowledges this: statements or attitudes alone are not enough, but they can serve as early warning signals, particularly regarding extremism.

This flexibility paves the way for a more proactive migration policy, allowing authorities to act upstream rather than after serious violations occur. It also signals a shift toward a broader, more political assessment of a foreigner’s presence on national territory.

Sweden is no longer an isolated case. From Denmark to Italy, and the Netherlands in between, European states are gradually tightening their frameworks. Across the continent, mass immigration systems are being questioned, and right-leaning governments are just beginning to attempt corrective measures. Behind this lies an implicit redefinition of migration policy: beyond technical adjustments, the signal is clear—residence in a national territory is once again revocable, not an irreversible trajectory.

This development responds to a demand for coherence in the face of migratory pressure.

For critics, it opens a gray zone, where the boundary between administrative fault, social behavior, and severe sanction—expulsion—becomes blurred. By raising the question of an “honest life,” Sweden is not merely adjusting its migration policy; it is redefining the terms of the implicit contract between the state and those it receives, beyond a simple legal definition. In a tense European context, this evolution could well foreshadow further, deeper shifts in the years ahead.

The notion of an “honest life” can be read as a first step toward the logic of remigration, comparable to the concept theorized by and other New Right European thinkers: organizing returns and limiting the settlement of populations deemed insufficiently integrated. This does not rely solely on criminal law but on a broader understanding of what real integration entails. Within this framework, Sweden is experimenting with a graduated and conditional mechanism, allowing authorities to revoke residence permits based on migrants’ social, economic, or legal behavior. This device illustrates how certain European policies aim to combine integration, control, and gradual return. And this is only the beginning.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Today, “remigration” has become a flashpoint for tensions. Since the 2010s, the concept has been adopted by identitarian circles as a response to the “Great Replacement” theorized by Renaud Camus. Once a fringe idea, it has steadily gained visibility. In France, Éric Zemmour placed it at the center of the 2022 presidential campaign, promising a “Ministry of Remigration.” Across Europe, the November 2023 “Potsdam meeting,” involving Martin Sellner, entrepreneurs, and officials from the Alternative für Deutschland, acted as a catalyst. Sellner later published Remigration, Ein Vorschlag, elaborating on his project. Today, remigration is at the heart of public debate, including within the political right.

“Remigration” is more than a slogan—it is a full-fledged project. This is the story of one man who decided to apply, to himself, the principles he advocated. Writing under a pseudonym for safety, Henri de Turenne agreed to share his journey. Known in French-speaking Twitter circles with nearly 26,000 followers, he chose to move from ideas to action. His testimony seeks neither to persuade nor to provoke. It simply lays out a path. Each reader is left to draw their own conclusions. Here is his story, unfiltered.

1. Could you introduce yourself ?

I prefer not to share my real name for safety reasons. On Twitter, where my account has reached 26,200 followers, I am known by the pseudonym Henri de Turenne, a tribute to the great French general I greatly admire. I can tell you that I am 35 years old, have spent much of my life in France, and decided to return to my country of origin in 2022.

2. What motivated you to come to Europe, and what did you actually find in terms of opportunities and lifestyle compared to what you imagined ?

I was born in Senegal. I came to France at the age of five, in December 1996, with my mother and my two older brothers. My father was already in France, initially living without legal status and making a living by giving private math lessons. During a conversation with members of an organization that helped undocumented migrants, he mentioned that his father (my grandfather) had fought for France during World War II, taking part in the landing in Provence on August 15, 1944. My grandfather’s father (my great-grandfather) had fought in the First World War and had been injured by gas at Ypres in 1915.

Following this, my father contacted his parents to send all the necessary military documents and diplomas to secure his regularization. Not only was he granted legal status, but he—and by extension his family—was “reintegrated” into French nationality under Article 153 of the French Nationality Code. This is how I was able to come to France with my mother and brothers. We lived in a public housing project in Draveil, in the Essonne department, where I went to school and quickly integrated, even though at first I didn’t speak a word of French—only Peulh, my mother tongue.

3. You chose to get politically involved in France. How did that start, and how did your visibility expose you to confrontations with your ideological opponents ?

My political engagement came about through a combination of factors. First and foremost, I have loved history since childhood. I remember, in elementary school, being starry-eyed when the teacher spoke about Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. I was also fascinated by the library books with illustrations of ancient cities like Athens, Rome, or Alexandria. That passion for history has never left me.

I went on to earn a literary baccalaureate in 2010 and then pursued a degree in history. Despite my love for history, I had been raised on republican propaganda, taught that France’s history was dark during the Middle Ages and the Ancien Régime, and only became enlightened starting in 1789. A brilliant professor during my degree changed my perspective, revealing the reality: French history was glorious throughout, and the monarchy was nothing like what we had been taught in primary and secondary school.

At the university library, I devoured countless books, especially biographies of French kings. Reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the Revolution finally convinced me. Around 2013–2014, I also began watching “reinformation” videos online, including content by Soral and Le Raptor Dissident, which offered a very different perspective for someone like me who grew up in the Paris suburbs, where left = good and right = bad.

The decisive moment in my politicization and rightward shift was meeting a university friend who was an active member of Action Française. Through our conversations and discussions, my understanding of France and what it should remain became clearer. I started accompanying him to certain Action Française events, and it was through these that my first confrontations with leftists and antifascists began.

4. You have been attacked multiple times by antifascist activists. How did you experience these assaults, and what do you think about the violence of the far left in France today ?

As I mentioned in a tweet on February 18, I’ve had several run-ins with antifas and the far left. After my first public appearance—where I went “viral” in a video during the Yellow Vest movement, explaining what I saw as the left’s manipulation of racial minorities to create a captive electorate and arguing that France has historically been white and should remain so—I was recognized several times on the street. Surprisingly, it wasn’t people of color who confronted me, even though some disagreed with my ideas; it was white, bourgeois leftists.

One evening, returning from a night out with friends I had met at university, I was confronted by antifas in the Latin Quarter, near the Cluny–La Sorbonne metro station. Having recognized me, they tried to snatch the MAGA hat I was wearing that night. A fight broke out. I took quite a few hits, I landed some too, but above all, I managed to keep my hat.

Another time, I accompanied my friend from Action Française to the commemoration of the November 11, 1940, demonstration—organized by students, including members of Action Française, and harshly suppressed by the German occupation authorities. This commemoration takes place each year on the Champs-Élysées, near the site of the Qatari embassy, where a plaque commemorates the event. That day, we spotted about ten antifas lurking around, trying to intimidate us with throat-slitting gestures. A member of AF, with the name of a Frankish king, approached them to ask their intentions. A fight then broke out. We all came to support each other and delivered what we saw as a firm and fair response.

During the Yellow Vest movement, I also witnessed various incidents and clashes with leftists and antifas trying to infiltrate and distort the movement—something they ultimately succeeded in doing, unfortunately. Then came COVID, and I focused more on my work, having secured a job as a history teacher at a private secondary school, so I no longer faced direct confrontations. However, I often went on an app called Discord and observed the left’s intolerance there: no debate, no presence, no right-wing ideas were tolerated on their servers, whereas right-wing servers always had leftists among them or invited them to debate. This is how I saw where fanaticism, intolerance, violence, and malice truly lay—a reality that the Quentin case painfully reminds us of.

5. Have these confrontations changed your perception of French society and your sense of belonging ?

These confrontations didn’t change my perception of French society or my sense of belonging, but they did convince me that living in a society alongside leftists was impossible. Their goal is to destroy society and the French nation, whereas ours was to preserve as much of it as possible—a task already severely compromised since the waves of mass immigration began in the 1960s and 1970s.

I was also frustrated by attempts at dialogue, exchange, or debate with the destructive camp of the left, which, whenever it can, socially—and sometimes even physically—targets its right-wing opponents: doxxing them, tracking down their jobs, contacting their banks, sabotaging commercial partnerships for right-wing influencers, and so on. I therefore decided to cut all ties with these people, except, of course, in family contexts, which are more complicated.

My perspective is that leftists are not loyal opponents with whom one can debate and persuade using rational, well-founded arguments—they are mortal enemies. Apparently, in 2020, this view was considered a bit too radical, as many of my friends at the time disagreed and thought I was far too extreme.

6. When did the idea of returning start to take shape? Was there a specific event, or was it a gradual realization ? How did your circle in Europe and Africa react to this decision ?

The idea of returning gradually took shape around 2020, during the lockdown, when I had a lot of time to be alone with my thoughts. How could I advocate for remigration while staying in France? Was I not, despite myself and despite my love for France, an agent of the Great Replacement? Slowly, the notion took root that I had to put my ideals and beliefs into practice; otherwise, it would amount to a certain kind of hypocrisy.

My family and friends reacted in different ways. My father had already returned to Senegal upon reaching retirement, and my mother was planning to do the same. They were therefore happy that we could be reunited there. My friends, on the other hand, were rather sad about my choice. Many told me that I was fully assimilated and had an unbounded love for France, yet I was leaving while France continued to welcome every year people who hate the country. “It’s not the best who should leave,” they said, “but the social misfits who make life miserable for everyone.”

Despite this, my decision was made. The 2022 election and Macron’s victory only reinforced it—France, the country I loved, was in the process of self-destruction, by the very choice of the French themselves.

7. How did you go about settling in your country of origin? What obstacles did you encounter, and how did you overcome them ?

In May 2022, I flew to Dakar, the capital of Senegal, where I have family, including my father. My mother joined me the following year. With a bachelor’s and master’s degree, I managed to find a job after about four months—unfortunately, it had nothing to do with my passion for history, but it is still engaging and fulfilling.

Having saved some money, I also invested in a business. Four years later, the business is running successfully and allows me to live comfortably without even needing to touch my salary from the company that employs me. By the standards of a West African country, I can therefore consider myself fairly well-off.

8. In what way do you consider your return a success today ?

I am now married and the father of a young boy, and in retrospect, I am quite happy with my decision. I am on the land of my ancestors, have been able to start a family—which I hope to grow soon—have launched a business that created four jobs and supports several families, and I pay taxes to the Senegalese state, which I hope will put them to good use. Yes, I believe my return has been a success, both personally and professionally.

9. Do you identify with the term “remigration” ? In your view, what conditions are necessary for a return to be successful and fulfilling ?

I fully identify with the term “remigration,” especially since, having been born abroad myself, I was an immigrant in France, even though I obtained French citizenship. I couldn’t say definitively what makes a return successful. I imagine that one must be motivated to contribute to one’s true homeland—the “land of the fathers,” where our ancestors are buried—which is not the case for the vast majority of immigrants, even those born in France, of the second or third generation.

Every journey is different, but with access to quality education and training, many immigrants could and should use their talents to benefit their countries of origin, particularly in Africa. I realize our countries are not going to become South Korea or Switzerland overnight, but it is certain that fleeing to Europe for a more comfortable life will not help advance the continent.

10. If you had to give advice to someone hesitating between staying in Europe or returning, what would you say ?

If I had to give advice to someone torn between staying in Europe or returning to Africa, it would, of course, be to go back. Return for your dignity, because by working in France, you are giving your labor, taxes, contributions, and skills to a country that is not yours—and never will be. Assimilation, which literally means “to make alike,” only works among Europeans, and even then, there were difficulties. I remind you that a large number of Italians and Poles who arrived in the 19th and 20th centuries eventually went back.

I am speaking especially to those who promote indigénist or victimhood narratives, accusing France of systemic racism and all that nonsense. Go back to Africa—there, you won’t suffer discrimination because of your skin color, your name, or your religion. Stop suffering on this continent and return to put your talents to work for Africa, which is waiting for you.

If you, too, are non-European and have chosen to practice remigration, contact us to share your story. Your experiences help shed light on this choice and reveal its many facets. Contact : voxeuropa.eu@gmail.com

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

At 23 years old, Raphaël Ayma embodies a new generation of identitarian activists emerging in France and across Europe. Spokesman of Tenesoun, rooted in Provence but connected to a broader continental dynamic, he represents a militant current that blends street activism, metapolitical strategy, intellectual references, and generational radicalism. The death of Quentin Deranque on February 14, following an assault in Lyon, marked a turning point for this movement. For Ayma and many of his comrades, Quentin’s death was not only a tragedy but a political signal — a catalyst accelerating organization, unity, and ideological clarity.

In this interview, Raphaël Ayma reflects on his political awakening, the strategic role of metapolitics, the future of identitarian youth, the question of radicalism, and the Europe his generation intends to shape.

1. Raphaël, could you introduce yourself to our readers? Who are you, what was your militant awakening, and how did Quentin’s tragedy strengthen your commitment?

My name is Raphaël Ayma, I’m 23 years old, and I was born in the southeast of France. I have some Spanish roots on my father’s side, and I grew up between the two countries—somewhere between Provence, Andalusia, and Madrid. I think this has shaped and strengthened my European aspirations. I became passionate about politics as a teenager. In fact, my family environment encouraged it. My maternal grandmother has a militant spirit. I have to admit, though, that it’s on the “wrong side”: she’s a communist from the last century, the kind you don’t see anymore. She was an activist in her life as well, and she was the one who passed on to me a love for public affairs. We talked about politics all the time, and I naturally got involved—it felt inevitable—at the age of sixteen. The idea of not being involved in politics was inconceivable to me. Above all, I hate inaction, and I want to have control over the things happening in the world.

I started at sixteen, in left-wing circles—with the Young Communists. But I quickly felt a disconnect between my comrades’ leftist passions and my own aspirations. The lack of discipline, the taboos around migration and identity issues… I already knew about the Great Replacement. I saw it around me—it was very tangible. The assassination of Samuel Paty was a turning point, a moment of rupture. Aware of the identity stakes behind his murder, I shifted to the right, into the identitarian camp. I haven’t lost the social conscience I developed on the left. I love my people deeply, and I see my engagement primarily as defending my own, out of a profound love for my fellow citizens.

I joined Tenesoun around the age of nineteen, an identitarian organization where I quickly became a spokesperson. Through this activism, I met many people, including Quentin. Quentin’s death affected me deeply because, as I said in my speech at the tribute demonstration, I meet young people like Quentin every day. They are twenty-year-olds who, like me, refuse to accept the world’s ugliness, the status quo, and the prevailing apathy. Quentin represents a generation that has been sacrificed and that had to take action to defend its existence. Dominique Venner used to say: to exist is to fight against what denies you. Quentin was one of those who fought. Behind the individual, I see all of French and European youth who resemble him.

2. You are particularly active on the metapolitical level (networks, markets, conferences, memorials). How do you see its role in Provençal and European renewal, especially since February 12?

I tend to believe that there should be no distinction between politics and metapolitics. The actions of the identitarian movement are political by nature. Some would like to divide political action into that of intellectuals, in think tanks and activist identitarian structures—which they would call metapolitical—and that of institutional parties, which would be “truly” political. I do not believe that we are not doing politics. On the contrary: perhaps our approach—ideological, hyperactive, militant, total—is infinitely more political than that of the old party structures.

Make no mistake: I am not opposed to the idea of engaging in the electoral field. On the contrary! I even believe that our own structures, in the near future, will also aim to participate in elections, following the Maurrassian logic of “by all means, even legal ones.” I think that our work plays a crucial role in socializing the “right-wing France”: the Rassemblement National has a captive electorate that remains politically inactive between electoral cycles. I follow a different approach. In my view, seizing power is certainly central, but what is accomplished along the way is just as important. One does not govern a country simply by reaching its highest institution or holding the majority of parliamentary seats: one governs a country by having transformed its cultural imagination, by having deeply convinced its population, by having prepared in advance the path to power. Political action is that which aims at concrete societal change—not just electoral victory.

I therefore consider that our activity is sometimes more political than that of the parties, in that it helps create life around our ideals. Our movement is in turmoil. It is the movement that generates the climate from which patriotic elected officials later benefit.

3. Tenesoun carries the motto “Build when everything collapses.” After the national tragedy surrounding Quentin, how do you envision the future of right-wing movements and European identity defense?

I believe that one of the side effects of Quentin’s tragic death has been to shine a light on the existence of our movement, which the general public largely ignored. Activist identitarian movements, spreading across France and Europe, express a dual purpose: to fight the replacement of European peoples, to refuse to let this state of affairs settle; and to engage in politics differently, in a more active, more concrete way. That is why these movements attract young people in large numbers! They are a hundred times more alive than the youth wings of conventional political parties will ever be.

Politicians love to obsess over this question: how do you get young people interested in politics? Step into an identitarian center, and you will see it—the youth genuinely interested in the world around them. Today, the identitarian movement is probably the political family with the youngest and most hyperactive social base there is. Initiatives are multiplying. Centers are opening nonstop. Conferences, demonstrations, media projects, and other initiatives are expanding exponentially. I believe our movement is a wave sweeping across everywhere. We are the face of the new Europe.

4. Quentin Deranque, 23, Catholic, mathematics student, died on February 14 following an assault on February 12. What does Quentin represent for you and your generation? What did you feel speaking in Lyon?

As I mentioned earlier, Quentin represents the archetype of a young person in their twenties—he was 23 at the time of his death—who refuses to tolerate the ugliness of the world or the status quo that our political elites want to impose. He was contrarian in every respect: Catholic in a desacralized era, engaged in an apolitical time, altruistic in a selfish age, determined in a lazy generation. Quentin embodies an entire youth: perhaps this is why his assassination resonated so strongly.

When I spoke in Lyon, I felt a deep surge of emotion. A sincere emotion, first of all, because I knew Quentin. I recalled our conversation over messages just a few hours before the speech. It left a strong mark on me. But I also felt the emotions of the crowd: a mix of grief, a healthy anger, and a will to act. Quentin was not apathetic—he lived, he lived fully through his commitments. I believe he leaves behind this message: never accept the prevailing cynicism. As Dylan Thomas’s poem says: “Don’t go gentle into that good night; rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

5. In Lyon, you called for a “sacred union” and declared “organize ourselves, by ourselves, for ourselves.” Why has this become central after Quentin’s death? What do you say to those who accuse you of radicalism?

Quentin was a nationalist and a Catholic activist. Portraying him as anything else, in my view, is a mistake. If the left killed Quentin, striking him on the head with such hatred, it is because they deeply despise what he represents: a nationalist Frenchman, identitarian, radical in his principles, devout. That is what they want to erase.

Consequently, when I say that we must organize ourselves by ourselves and for ourselves, it is because I believe that our political movement is a full-fledged tendency, one that the left fears. They fear it because they know it is effective, politically powerful. Quentin’s assassination is a political assassination: paying tribute to him is also about continuing the fight for which he gave his life. And that fight is the fight of our movement.

Our movement has its internal tendencies: in France, there are royalists, identitarians, national-revolutionaries. The tribute march reflected this diversity. It brought together all the tendencies of the radical right, but also voters of the Rassemblement National, sympathizers, families, Catholics. I believe all these people have more in common than they have differences. All my activism goes toward this goal: no tendency within our movement should “triumph” over another. We waste too much time on internal wars. We must unite, stand together, and establish ourselves as a true, coherent political tendency. This is a prerequisite for political effectiveness.

My encounter with Quentin reflected this spirit. I had met him along with a few activists from Action Française whom I contacted during a trip to Vienne. He was not an activist with them, just a sympathizer, and I am not a royalist. A few days later, he came to Provence, where we welcomed him. Quentin was heterodox in his commitments. Union reflects the nature of his struggle. I like this image: I feel comfortable among my people, whether with the most radical hooligans or with devout grandmothers from respectable families. I love all the faces of my people.

6. What concrete role must this youth now assume? And how does Tenesoun support them on the ground?

This youth must play the role of a spur. It must be incorruptible. People will say to them—and they are already saying it to us—“You’re not doing politics the right way.” I hate this prevailing cynicism! I do not believe that doing politics means compromising or seeking consensus. Doing politics means imposing an agenda. To impose ideas, you must not renounce them. You must insist, mobilize, push forward, and above all, be extremely patient. Imposing our slogans, existing, and enduring—that is the very DNA of Tenesoun and other movements of its kind.

If we institutionalize, we must do so only on the condition that we have a real influence on the political line of parties. I do not believe that entryism works—particularly in France, where the structure of the Rassemblement National is too vertical and rigid to have any real influence on the party line—nor do I think it is even relevant for us to join the RN system. We have more political influence outside than inside. But to make this external influence possible, we must give ourselves the means. To give ourselves the means, we must be professional: hire people, set up organizations, provide economic opportunities within the movement.

I love radicalism, but I love it when it is intelligent. A disorderly radical is useless. Radicalism must be disciplined—an old Leninist lesson.

7. You organized multiple tributes in Aix, Nice, and Lyon. How do you explain the scale and diversity of the mobilization?

Regarding his diverse character, I believe that all the tendencies of the French radical right are embodied in Quentin, and in any case, the death of one of our own is such an urgent matter that it erases our differences. The scale of the mobilization is closely linked to the existence of the identitarian movement. It was not the Rassemblement National that called people into the streets and squares of this country, despite their substantial territorial network with deputies. It was the identitarian movements. We are a territorially rooted movement. Just a little while ago, I saw that a tribute is being organized in Mende, a small town in the depths of Lozère, driven by local identitarian activists. Who else but us is capable of doing politics in such remote territories? It is the existence of the movement that makes it possible to be everywhere, all the time.

8. You master both parliamentary and metapolitical codes. Which thinkers or currents have influenced you most, and how does Quentin embody this synthesis?

I am not very ideological—or rather, I dislike ideologism. I consider reality to be far too chaotic and flexible to lock oneself into doctrines, which would be like ready-made manuals for thinking, supposedly allowing us to analyze the world. If I am asked to define myself politically, I deliberately keep it broad: nationalist, identitarian, patriotic, Catholic—whatever.

This does not mean that I lack intellectual references or fixed opinions on certain key issues, such as the economy or ecology. But I defend the ability to adapt to the concrete realities of situations and circumstances. I do, however, believe in one thing: politics must be nourished by concrete material realities. We must start from the environment in order to analyze the world.

I am not a Marxist; my aspirations are anti-materialist, idealistic, and transcendental. I believe in eternity, the soul, the immaterial, the spiritual needs of humans, and the idea that it is not matter that drives the world, but something beyond us. I am largely influenced by the French New Right, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Rousseau, Dominique Venner, Jérôme Fourquet, and Proudhon. I appreciate Saint-Just just as I appreciate virtuous French kings; I do not take a rigid stance on the form of government. I believe there are virtuous republics and decadent monarchies.

9. After Quentin’s death and the legal investigations connected to left-wing networks, what concrete measures do you propose for France and Europe regarding antifascist terrorism?

Institutionally, we call for the dissolution or banning of ANTIFA organizations, a measure that has been taken in a number of countries—such as the United States and Hungary. I believe that public authorities must examine the extent of antifascist networks and, above all, as we have seen in France, the complicity of certain authorities and political actors with them. How is it possible that the collaboration between the Jeune Garde and the Lyon city hall was so close, with municipal spaces being lent to the group ?

10. The left has infrastructures — NGOs, media, universities, militant networks. How should the European right build its metapolitical ecosystem? Should Quentin’s death be the trigger?

In my view, economic structures must first and foremost support political action. It is very good that our activists run businesses. In fact, it is vital for some, because for many of us, once you are demonized by the left and socially marginalized, you are forced to work for yourself. Financial independence allows us to have independent political action.

But we must be wary of a certain syndrome that sometimes appears within the movement: the tendency to drift away from political action as one builds a profitable economic activity. This is a dead-end path that some take, and it can be problematic. We are, above all, political movements. Our movements must be true ecosystems. Several Tenesoun activists currently work in, with, or thanks to the resources that political activity provides.

11. Following Quentin’s death, institutional right-wing parties maintained their strategy of normalization. Are they still useful, or are they betraying their base?

The Rassemblement National decided not to attend the tributes for Quentin and even went so far as to cancel their own, in Avignon—the constituency of Raphaël Arnault, the leader of the Jeune Garde. It is dramatic, but it does not surprise me. I remember that the RN had organized a demonstration for the condemnation of Marine Le Pen, gathering barely 5,000 people in Paris. Five thousand people, not counting the roughly 120 RN deputies, with their three parliamentary assistants each, while also bringing buses from all the federations. The failure of that demonstration comes down to one simple fact: the RN refuses to socialize its electorate. It does not make them politically active year-round. This is a break from its history during the FN era.

Old militants from Aix-en-Provence told me that in the 1990s, the FN had two local offices and an intellectual journal in Aix-en-Provence. France no longer has a “militant party,” meaning totalitarian in the sense that it is active in all areas of life, as the French Communist Party once was. When my grandmother tells me about her communist youth, it makes me smile: she went to see Soviet films on the Canebière in the Party’s cinema, joined the communist scouts, traveled to the GDR at the end of her studies, and lived the life of the party all day long, in every aspect of her existence. We read and consumed communist culture. Without going to Bolshevik extremes, I believe it is crucial that a party is more than just a ballot in a box. A party must create life around it.

Contrary to common belief, I do not condemn “de-demonization.” I understand that the RN must achieve 50+1. Granted: our paths are not the same. An identitarian is not meant to join the RN. It serves no purpose. We must be able to organize ourselves, by ourselves—because it is essential. The RN will come to power in this country at some point. We must be sufficiently organized and powerful outside of it at that moment to influence its line. Otherwise, it will govern poorly. The difference between them and us is that they are subject to the dictatorship of public opinion. We, on the other hand, advance our agenda and grow less marginal every day.

One single motto: prepare for the times ahead.

12. What is your vision of tomorrow’s Europe?

I believe that my generation—my identitarian generation—will continue doing what it does while integrating into society. Today’s twenty-year-old activists will tomorrow be lawyers, civil servants, prominent figures, influencers, entrepreneurs. The goal is simple: keep your radicalism and climb the social ladder, organize yourselves to better steer society in our direction tomorrow.

I believe that each of us is individually destined for an important political role in the issues that will shake Europe in five or ten years. Our radicalism is not an obstacle; on the contrary, it is an asset. The Overton window shifts every day. People like us will tomorrow be deputies or ministers. Europe will bear our face—the face of this radical, cheerful, smiling youth that has not compromised its ideals. Our refusal of cynicism will be rewarded; today’s insults will become tomorrow’s honors.

13. Radicalism is often demonized, yet you embrace it openly. How do you distinguish constructive radicalism from sterile radicalism?

Constructive radicalism is disciplined, professional, and strategic. Too many institutional figures confuse radicalism with political inefficiency. The problem is not who we are, because in fact, we are relatively normal—twenty-somethings who refuse to accept the madness of the world. And we are healthy: socially, individually, morally.

I believe the problem lies in our lack of method, coherence, and unity in action. That is something that is changing. You must set a point, a goal, fix your eyes on it, never let it go, and move toward it without stopping. Stay faithful to principles, and let our ideas grow as we grow as men and women. Most of us are twenty years old—the world of tomorrow belongs to us.

14. Final message to readers — what is the motto for the generation that refuses to kneel?

“I know that by striking the same nail repeatedly, one can bring down a house. History provides us with examples: refusal has always played a crucial role. Saints, hermits, but also intellectuals—the few people who made history—are those who said no, not the courtiers and the cardinals’ lackeys. To be effective, refusal must be total.” (Pier Paolo Pasolini)

I do not believe in “wisdom”: I think we are closer to the truth at twenty, when our eyes shine, our faces are young, and we are uncorrupted, than at forty, when life has caught up with us and made us forget the ideals of our youth. They confuse radicalism with integrity. We will win because our cause is just.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

I. The facts : a lynching on the sidelines of a controversial conference

On Thursday, February 12, 2026, around 6 p.m. in Lyon, LFI MEP Rima Hassan—a prominent pro-Palestinian figure—gave a conference on EU–Middle East relations. The Némésis collective had organized a peaceful protest: a few of their activists unfurled a banner reading “Get out, Islamo-leftists.”

Quentin, 23, a mathematics student with no criminal record, was there to support Némésis’s action—not as an official “security agent,” according to his family and his lawyer Me Fabien Rajon, but simply to defend his convictions peacefully. A close friend, Baptiste, told Frontières : “Every week he’d go out to bring food and some human warmth to the homeless on the streets of Lyon. Quentin was genuinely virtuous, a very noble soul, a true Frenchman.” He added: “What drove him every day was his faith and his desire to serve. He came to help those brave young women from Némésis. On the other side, the Antifa mob was clearly looking for a fight.”

Five young women from Némésis were assaulted by far-left militants near the event. At the same time, others were being chased by around thirty Antifas. Between 6:30 and 6:40 p.m., on Rue Victor-Lagrange (about 500 m away), Quentin found himself isolated, thrown to the ground, and lynched with kicks to the head by a gang of hooded militants wearing reinforced gloves. He was rushed to hospital with severe brain injuries and placed in an induced coma. Amateur footage shows about twenty people in the street, a motionless man on the pavement, and an outburst of pure hatred and violence. The far-left militants kept beating the unconscious man lying on the ground.

On Saturday, February 14, his death was confirmed. An investigation was opened for “aggravated fatal blows” (in a group, with a weapon, faces concealed). On site, Némésis and several activists reported the presence of Jacques-Elie Favrot, parliamentary assistant to LFI MP Raphaël Arnault and spokesperson for the “La Jeune Garde” group, dissolved in 2025. According to a witness to the lynching, this assistant was identified as responsible and described as the ringleader of the attack, reportedly urging the militants on with words like: “Come on guys, let’s kick their asses.” Also mentioned are Adrian Besseyre, a highly active member of La Jeune Garde Lyon who reportedly did an internship at the National Assembly with Raphaël Arnault, and Lelio Le Besson, a member of La Jeune Garde Lyon’s security detail. For his part, Jean-Luc Mélenchon has called this violence-dissolved movement an “ally.” La Jeune Garde’s security service is said to have been regularly used by LFI, including at this Rima Hassan conference.

In their second statement on February 14, the family denounced an organized gang murder, a premeditated ambush. The video makes it clear: scouting, accomplices, numerical superiority, masks, relentless blows on an immobile body. The family stressed that Quentin “defended his convictions without violence.”

The judicial case is extremely sensitive and could reach certain MPs for possible incitement or complicity (Art. 23 of the 1881 Press Law). A criminal investigation must be opened swiftly against far-left MPs. This type of murder can carry life imprisonment when committed by several people acting as an organized gang (Article 221-4 of the Penal Code).

Part of the radical left is downplaying this assassination, relativizing it by pointing out that Quentin was “far-right,” a “Nazi.” Blast journalist Camille Stineau declared: “You institutional left parties are perfectly happy to have Antifas around your events to protect you from the fascists. But the day the fight gets a bit too rough and a Nazi dies, you throw the Antifas under the bus? Go fuck yourselves.” Blast received €316,000 in public funding in 2024. On social media, many—often anonymous—accounts have celebrated this assassination. Moderate left and centrist figures have condemned the tragedy without explicitly naming those responsible. Several posted their messages with comments disabled or limited. Commentators also recall that Emmanuel Macron backed Raphaël Arnault’s candidacy against the National Rally to “fight the far right.” They further point out that during the campaign in the relevant constituency, the RN had sidelined several activists deemed “too” radical by its leadership.

II. Analysis : a tragedy that exposes unpunished far-left terrorism

Far-left violence is not a marginal phenomenon. This tragedy is not isolated; it lays bare a serious political problem that can no longer be brushed aside. The entire history of the far left can be summed up here: hit those weaker than you, in numbers, prepared and armed. According to the Observatory of Political Violence, far-left violence in France rose 68% between 2024 and 2025. In 2013 the entire political class immediately condemned Clément Méric’s death, with the institutional right once again showing particular zeal—even though Clément Méric had attacked a right-wing activist. What about today for the nationalist militant murdered by Antifas?

For years, whistleblowers have been warning about far-left terrorism. These warnings go unheeded, and now we have this tragedy. It will keep happening until the antifascist movement is treated as terrorist. La France Insoumise and the entire left legitimize this violence and bear moral responsibility for this assassination as well as for the many other attacks on innocents. Many right-wing MPs ignore warnings from their activist base; some even despise them, and others support repression against our political groups in order to “de-demonize” themselves. The authorities do nothing to correct this grave democratic failure or to protect innocent activists.

Today we are paying the heaviest price. Quentin is dead. Quentin was innocent. A Catholic who converted his father—former Action Française activist, France’s oldest political formation—and sympathizer of Academia Christiana, a Catholic training institute, he had committed himself to the common good. Quentin came to defend the women of Némésis. To defend their freedom of expression, their right to demonstrate against a conference by the Islamo-leftist Rima Hassan, a symbol of anti-white hatred sitting in the European Parliament. Némésis activists face violence from left-wing men at every action: insults, death threats, beatings, strangling. Quentin wanted to say no to this violence at his own level. More broadly, for years across Europe the far left has been smashing, beating and killing—with the tacit or open support of the entire left. We saw it with Maja and the left’s backing in the European Parliament.

Right-wing activists bear no moral responsibility for the violence they face alone. They are in a permanent state of legitimate self-defense against unchecked, uncontrolled violence. Quentin died for who he was, for what we represent: the fight against mass immigration, against wokism, love of family and love of our land. We carry the torch and we will keep watch over our own, as Quentin did. In the face of intimidation and complicit silence, we choose loyalty and solidarity among Europeans who refuse to vanish into indifference.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Andrea Ballarati is currently at the center of a controversy that goes beyond Italy’s borders. An activist and organizer of the Remigration Summit, he is considered one of the pioneers who introduced and popularized the concept of remigration in Italy. Today, Ballarati is facing legal proceedings for “hate speech,” a trial that raises serious questions about the politicization of justice in Europe and the limits of freedom of expression in our democracies. Andrea Ballarati is a new example of repression against identitarian movements in Europe. We met with him.

1. You are being prosecuted for “hate speech.” Could you explain precisely what you are accused of? What were your statements?

Since I brought the term « Remigration » back to Italy from Vienna in 2023, the judicial power in Italy has investigated me and my group for hatespeech. They tracked my calls, my contacts, my phone, they tried to listen to my calls, a treatment reserved to terrorists and mafiosos, all because I stated obvious and reasonable things such as « The never integrated bands of migrants which are now imposing their law on us are the representation of the failure of multiculturalism » or « France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium are on the verge of becoming composed mostly by migrants, there is no time left, one word : Act ! ». These sentences were used as a basis to proceed against me with a case of « incitement to discriminate » that could cost me 1 year and 6 months of my life in jail.

2. Do you think this investigation is a matter of justice, or is it a political tool aimed at silencing you?

The tendency that has become relevant in the west, especially against fellow identitarian activists, is the fact that the judicial proceedings have become a political tool of repression, just like it was in the old regimes, which is not only aimed at censoring the single individual in question, myself in this case, but it is aimed to instill fear in the public and demoralize the supporters of the ideas proposed. So, in my case, this hatespeech case, considering the fact that it appears right as Remigration has become popular in Italy and is threatening to become a mobilizing myth against the enstablishment, I can safely and rationally assume it’s being used as a weapon of fear against the broader remigration movement.

3. Giorgia Meloni, as Italian Prime Minister, has taken firm positions on national sovereignty and immigration. Do you see a contrast between her political discourse and what you are experiencing?

Giorgia Meloni presented herself as the beacon of a deeply needed political change in Italy and Europe, with her fierce propaganda making the whole continent, me included, hope for her success and rise. I was a member of her party in 2019 and I became disillusioned with her in the COVID-19 era, during which, although she was in the opposition, she made me realize her party was just part of a script to contain and direct dissent. She has been a member of the Aspen Institute, a globalist container directed by the Rockefellers, since 2021; her role is to ensure US influence in Europe, and the economic interests that support her, mainly Confindustria which is an industrial conglomerate, are pushing for more mass migration, hence the « Decreto Flussi », her law which will allow 500k migrants from MENAPT to come in the country legally over the next 3 years.

4. Some consider your trial an example of “lawfare” in the Italian style. What do you think of this strategy, and do you believe it is used against other conservative figures in Europe?

In these cases it is important to remember that, since they never have any basis to proceed, they are not aiming to convict activists, at least most of the times, instead they aim to isolate, strangle, demoralize and economically bleed us out.

The strategy is clear and simple : The system detects opposition, it starts by dehumanizing it, then it tries to censor it, then it tries to silence it.

Lawfare is a way to do all of the above at the same time : They dehumanize you through bad press and by marking you with the « investigated » or « condemned » labels which in our burgeouis society are stigmas that can ostracize and isolate people ; these stigmas often mean you cannot work, get services or live normally, isolation increases as regular people only see what the system feeds them about you ; years of processes cost thousands of euros and are deliberately elongated as much as possible to enable as much negative effects on the individual as possible ; the gigantic pressure results often in demoralization and auto-silencing of the threat. The main example of this I believe is Dries Van Langenhove, already famously convicted for memes and now with other 12 legal cases against him.

5. You were one of those who helped popularize the concept of Remigration in Italy. How do you define this term, and why do you believe it is crucial for Europe today?

Remigration aims to be the pragmatic, rational, gradual, continental solution to the existential threat which Europe is facing through mass migration, a process that in the course of the last decades has brought the continent in a serious demographic crisis. Remigration is a tool, not an end, and this tool needs to be adaptable to the different realities that compose our continental system ; it is our task to ensure the end is achieved : The Reconquista of our homelands in order to maintain the lands of our ancestors the lands of our descendants.

6. The Remigration Summit has attracted international media attention. On May 30, 2026, it will take place in Porto. What impact can this kind of event have on public debate?

Well, I think RESUM25 is an answer in itself. The sole announcement of such an event had, in Italy, the effect to make Remigration popular overnight, even before the event took place. During the event and after it the impact was enormous : Parties, associations, politicians, academics started to discuss and use the term and it was inserted in the dictionary right aftewards. Internationally Resum25 made such waves that even the US President started to use it regularly. As of now, Remigration has gone global which exposes risks : The term can lose this meaning. Resum26 is aimed at this : It will be bigger, better, more political and most importantly will go in depth like never before and produce actual basis for a comprehensive remigration approach in Europe.

7. Some say your ideas are radical. How do you respond to critics who accuse you of extremist tendencies ?

My radical ideas were the baseline ideas of my ancestors. Our reality is just an anomaly that stands upon foundations of lies and manipulation. I can answer only this : If facts become radical, and truth is made extreme it means lies are being exposed and the end of the system is near.

8. You speak of personal sacrifices for this cause. What have been the heaviest, and why do you feel they were worth it?

Activism has its toll, especially for those of us who lead and expose themselves to the dangers of the « trade ». I lost many friendships, passed on many opportunities, closed different pathways I could take all because of what I perceive is my Destiny and I believe Just and truthful. Time is certainly a currency that is spent with no measure, and the stress can have its weight, but I believe I speak for all activists out there when I say this : I would not have it otherwise and will keep sacrificing with a smile as I want to be able to look in the mirror without shame, to hold my head up high, to look in the eyes of my children and be able to tell them « I fought for you ».

9. To what extent have your international networks, particularly with other conservative movements in Europe and the United States, strengthened your strategy?

Networking is key to expand influence throughout the globe and strengthen ties with containers of influence. In my role in the Remigration Summit orgaization I have enstablished various contacts at all levels of the political game ranging from simple militants to government officials, and this has opened various opportunities for us and our project, other than permitting an easier normalization of our talking points and their entrance, or conquest, of the mainstream.

10. As an Italian and an identitarian, what lessons do you draw from Meloni’s policies?

A clear and simple lesson which seems idiotic to present is to never betray your promises and go soft on your own « strength » based programme. She played with her electorate’s emotions and needs and betrayed them as soon as she had the chance to appease other containers of influence which do not care about the wellbeing of the peoples of Italy.

11. Do you think the influence of social media (X/Twitter, Telegram, Threads) can change the balance of power between activists and institutions?

Information and the means connected to it are the only way activists can reach and mobilize a public. Our role is to shift the window of political discourse and to focus it on certain urgent issues and stir it in the right direction. Access to free, uncensored means of community driven, mass information, like X for example, has, in my opinion, drastically changed the cards at play equalizing the balance of power between us and the system itself. For this reason the EU is trying everything they can to shut down or control these channels completely : Control information and you control perception, control perception and you control reality.

12. Finally, if you were to address a message to European and international readers who follow your struggle and the controversies surrounding freedom of expression, what would you say to them?

The battle of our time is here and now. It is something more total, complete and deep than anything our people have ever faced before. Our fight is to ensure the continuative existance of our whole civilization, and of truth as a whole, and we must use both as our shield and sword. Our ancestors built us solid foundations and walls in order for us to be sheltered, we must equip the bows and arrows and get on top of these walls. Always speak up, never cower in fear : The future belongs to us !

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Behind the polished image of Scandinavian cyberactivism lies a darker network of influence. Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, co-founder of the famous file-sharing site The Pirate Bay, is now accused of facilitating the creation of one of the most sophisticated digital ecosystems linked to the global far-left movement. Through his companies Ab Stract and Privactually Ltd, Sunde allegedly provides the technological infrastructure for websites associated with Antifa and its European affiliates, enabling anonymous coordination, doxxing campaigns, and transnational fundraising.

Investigations have revealed that Sunde’s anonymization service, Njalla, launched in 2017 and marketed as a privacy tool, is often used to hide the operators of extremist websites. These include platforms such as Antifa.se in Sweden, Redox.dk in Denmark, Nazifrei.org in Switzerland, and Antifainfoblatt.de in Germany, all accused of publishing private information about journalists, politicians, and right-wing activists.

In several cases, these campaigns have directly targeted members of Junge Tat, a patriotic youth movement in Switzerland, and other activists in the European identity movement. Their members have been subjected to harassment, dismissal from their jobs, and threats as a result of coordinated doxxing operations. According to Tobias Lingg, the leader of Junge Tat, the publications on these sites have “led to widespread harassment and targeted social destruction,” a pattern now documented in several European countries.

Beyond Scandinavia, Sunde’s infrastructure connects these European Antifa groups to American far-left networks. The US, under new counterterrorism guidelines, has classified Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, paving the way for sanctions against individuals and entities that provide “material support” to its operations. If Sunde’s companies are found guilty of hosting or processing payments for these groups, they could be subject to US counterterrorism legislation.

The network is transnational in scope. In Germany, for example, Antifainfoblatt.de is identified by authorities as a propaganda and coordination center for Antifa’s militant branches, supporting fundraising efforts for convicted extremists such as members of the “Hammer Gang.” Read our article by Martin Kuziel.

In Denmark, the website Redox.dk continues to publish the personal data of political opponents, despite previous convictions for defamation. And in Sweden, Antifa.se has repeatedly disclosed the personal details of elected representatives of the Sweden Democrats party, with Njalla protecting the real operators of the site from law enforcement.

According to the same investigations, Ab Stract and 31173 Services AB act as Internet service providers for Njalla, allowing these sites to remain online independently of traditional hosting providers who cooperate with the police and the courts. Financial transactions, meanwhile, go through the offshore company Privactually Ltd, based in Cyprus, an arrangement that further obscures responsibility and ownership.

Several independent investigations also indicate that the anonymizing infrastructure linked to Njalla may have been used to host illegal content or conceal illicit activities on the dark web. The lack of cooperation from some of these structures with the authorities fuels concerns about the use of these tools by extremist or criminal networks.

Sunde’s personal history adds to the controversy. Already ordered to pay more than $11 million to Hollywood studios for copyright infringement, he reportedly has unpaid debts exceeding 128 million Swedish kronor to major media groups. His assets are reportedly protected by trustees, shell companies, and even testamentary clauses preventing their seizure, raising further questions about the financial opacity surrounding his businesses.

The implications go beyond political activism. With Antifa now designated as a terrorist entity in the US, European policymakers are under increasing pressure to examine how digital infrastructure based in the EU may facilitate extremist activities abroad. Some Swedish parliamentarians, including members of the Sweden Democrats party, have already proposed motions at the national and European levels to consider similar classifications.

Faced with these revelations, Europe can no longer ignore the reality of the danger posed by networks linked to the radical far left. What presents itself as an “anti-fascist” movement has, in fact, transformed itself into a transnational structure capable of monitoring, harassing, and destabilizing its political opponents under the guise of activism. The American example marks a turning point. Europe must learn from this: as long as these networks benefit from technical infrastructure, opaque funding, and political tolerance, they will continue to undermine the stability and internal security of the continent. It is time for European authorities to take a clear stance: ban Antifa structures, as the United States has done, and dismantle the digital networks that allow them to operate in the shadows.

This article is based on the investigative work of Swedish journalist , who alerted the Trump administration to the anti-fascist circles in Sweden and the threat they pose to Swedish and European democracy.

Subscribe now

Perhaps you saw this action in Karlsruhe last summer, in 2024: a huge German flag unfurled as part of Stolzmonat, transforming LGBT Pride Month into a month of patriotic pride. Today, the German state is cracking down hard on those who peacefully stand up to defend their homeland, their identity, and their culture.

Among them is Marius Keipp, a former activist with Generation Identity Germany and former spokesperson for the identity action group Reconquista21 in Baden-Württemberg. On Tuesday, October 28, his home was the target of a major police raid—all because of that simple German flag.

Marius, you had a visit from a police commando unit this Tuesday. What happened that morning?

Marius: Around seven in the morning, I was awakened by loud noises in my house. The police broke down my front door with a battering ram. When I stepped into the hallway, I was confronted by five masked officers, one of whom had his weapon drawn. I had to raise my hands, stand against the wall, and was frisked as if I were a dangerous criminal.

My cell phone was taken away, and I had to spend the entire morning on my couch while they searched the whole house and took my devices.

What was the reason for this massive operation?

Marius: The accusation is that I was involved in a so-called “unregistered assembly” – an action in Karlsruhe’s palace park in the summer of 2024, during which a banner with a political message was displayed and smoke in black, red, and gold was set off. The action was part of the patriotic campaign “Stolzmonat”. Throughout Germany this June, black, red, and gold colors were hoisted to counter the LGBTQ scene’s “Pride Month.”

I was identified as the “ringleader” based on fingerprints on a smoke pot – and then 20 officers from all over Germany were sent to me to secure “further evidence.”

An unannounced gathering is a harmless offense that is usually punished with a fine of less than 1,000 euros, but it was treated as a serious crime. The operation at my home and the effort that went into it is nothing short of scandalous.

What was your impression of the officers’ behavior?

Marius: It was pure power play. They also searched the rooms of my roommates—people who had nothing to do with the matter. One of them even lives in another house on the same property. The door was only not kicked in because the resident was at home and let the officers in. My other roommate was not there at the time of the raid and now has to get a new door. This shows how much this was about intimidation and not about prosecuting a serious crime that endangered anyone’s safety.

You have been involved in Generation Identity for almost 10 years. What is the current climate in Germany towards you?

Marius: On the one hand, our structures are growing in depth and breadth - both nationally and internationally. We have many activists and supporters. The tide is turning, as it is everywhere in the Western world. People are fed up with illegal immigration, foreign infiltration, and national self-hatred. They want to live as self-determined Germans in a German Germany, celebrate their identity, and love their culture. The massive support we receive makes that clear.

Unfortunately, our political opponents are becoming increasingly repressive. I am not an isolated case: many of my fellow campaigners are plagued by these harassing house searches. More and more often, doors are broken down, laptops and cell phones disappear into the warehouses of the investigating authorities. Even apolitical people are increasingly affected. Nasty comments on social media are enough for the establishment to order house searches or impose heavy fines. The regime has abandoned any objective debate and is just using pure force. Plot twist: it won’t work.

How has this experience changed you personally?

Marius K: It has only motivated me to work harder on my projects. At 31, I am too old for Identitarian activism. I now devote myself to other work than organizing banner campaigns. The fact that the state continues to persecute me despite my departure from the front line clearly shows how low their inhibitions are towards us. There is no peaceful old age and no place of retreat. Once you have chosen the path of activism, you remain an activist for life, even if the form it takes changes.

I will not give up or allow myself to be intimidated in any way. Their repression is the best proof that our activism works.

What would you like to say to people who identify with your values but are afraid to be open about them?

Marius: I can understand anyone who hesitates. The price of sincerity is getting higher. But there comes a point when silence is no longer possible. In our countries, young Europeans are being brutally murdered for no reason, our women no longer dare to go out on the streets for fear of assault—our future hangs by a thread. I know activism is hard, but remaining silent in the face of these circumstances is also hard: choose your hard.

How can we support you in the face of this repression?

Marius: We have launched a GiveSendGo campaign to cover the costs of the measure. Every euro helps us and we are grateful for every donation! https://www.givesendgo.com/hisstdieflagge

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Offensiv!

Antoine Dresse is a Belgian philosopher and YouTuber. On his channel Ego non, he produces videos about various European thinkers such as Oswald Spengler, Gustave Le Bon, Edmund Burke, and Carl Schmitt. He also collaborates with Romain Petitjean as editorial director at the Iliade Institute, as well as with his fellow countryman David Engels. He is the author of À la rencontre d’un cœur rebelle : Entretiens sur Dominique Venner (co-written with Clotilde Venner) and Le réalisme politique: principes et présupposés.

Could you introduce yourself and tell us about your work?

I’m originally from Liège, in French-speaking Belgium. I studied philosophy in Brussels and later in Fribourg, Switzerland. Today, I mainly work as a video creator through my YouTube channel Ego Non, where I produce videos on political philosophy. I have also been collaborating with the Iliade Institute for the past two years. In addition to the editorial work I do within the Institute, I will soon be co-hosting one of its training sessions in Belgium, together with Jeremy Baneton. I also write regularly for Éléments, and I recently published an essay on “political realism.”

What are the main goals you seek to achieve through your work?

The aim of my channel Ego Non is to contribute to the rebuilding of a coherent worldview—one structured around philosophical principles capable of defending European civilization. Criticizing the excesses and aberrations of progressive and egalitarian thought is necessary, but we cannot limit ourselves to merely commenting on the whirlwind of current events. We must be able to connect concrete political struggle to underlying principles, to a worldview, and to well-developed theoretical foundations—not as a means of escapism, but in order to assert a positive force. As Bergson famously said, one must strive to “act like a man of thought and think like a man of action.”

In each of my videos, I therefore try to present a key concept or major idea from a particular thinker, always seeking to connect it, in one way or another, to a contemporary political issue so as to offer a new angle of reflection.

As a Belgian, you are at one of the crossroads of European culture. What lesson do you draw from that ?

First and foremost, a lesson in European identity. Born in the province of Liège, I grew up near the Dutch and German borders, and it was not uncommon for me to take little trips to Maastricht or Aachen. Being at the crossroads of four major European cultures—Dutch, German, French, and English—allows one to better understand what we share. In a way, I have always felt “European”: European because I am Belgian, and Belgian because I am European.

Who are your intellectual and literary inspirations? Are there authors or thinkers, particularly German ones, who have especially influenced your work?

Without a doubt! Germanic culture has been very important to me since my adolescence, starting with my discovery of Wagner, which, without exaggeration, was one of the most profound shocks of my life. From there, I became interested in Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, then in the great names of German literature of that era: Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Hölderlin, Kleist, Eichendorff, and so on. Having studied philosophy, Germany again offers indispensable figures such as Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Husserl, and Heidegger. I must also mention the so-called “Conservative Revolution,” as defined by Armin Mohler, whose representatives—Ernst Jünger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler, and especially Carl Schmitt, though he is somewhat atypical in this current—played a decisive role in shaping my intellectual formation.

However, my inspirations are not limited to the Germanic world. I have long been passionate about Russian literature and original thinkers like Tchaadaïev, Danilevski, Konstantin Leontiev, Vladimir Soloviev, Berdiaev, and Solzhenitsyn. Counter-revolutionary thinkers have also provided a solid foundation for reflection. But I would especially like to mention authors who are difficult to classify, yet with whom I increasingly identify, such as Machiavelli, Gustave Le Bon, Vilfredo Pareto, Isaiah Berlin, or Julien Freund.

How has your experience as a philosopher influenced your intellectual approach?

I believe my approach stems entirely from my interest in philosophy. To those judges who offered him freedom on the condition that he abandon philosophy, Socrates replied, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This principle reflects my own mindset. Practicing philosophy primarily involves clarifying one’s thoughts and freeing oneself from unexamined “opinion,” and this is what led me to the thinkers I present on my channel.

What does it mean to be “European” in the contemporary context ?

The very need to ask this question shows how much general knowledge and historical awareness among Europeans have eroded. Since Charlemagne—nicknamed in his lifetime “Rex Pater Europae”—Europeans have rarely doubted that they were part of a single civilizational space. National consciousness emerged only late, within a pre-existing European society. Today, many feel solidarity with the rest of the world before Europe, or, conversely, display a narrow, caricatural, anti-traditional chauvinism. We therefore suffer from both an uprooted cosmopolitan education and an excessively nationalist rewriting of history from the last century.

Being European today means rejecting both the cosmopolitan, egalitarian ideology that treats individuals as interchangeable, and also reconnecting with deep historical roots, naturally drawing from the same sources as other European peoples. But it is more than that: being European also means recognizing a shared past and understanding that we face a shared challenge. The collapse of our culture, anthropological decline, and demographic replacement are threats that affect Europe as a whole.

How should we defend and promote European heritage?

Politically, at the level of states, this involves defining oneself first and foremost as part of a specific civilizational whole, which means rejecting anything that undermines this space.

On a personal level, it means refusing the mediocrity promoted by mass subculture. European culture has beautifully combined refinement and grandeur, sophistication and strength; we must cultivate both in our inner lives: demonstrating strength by resisting anthropological decline and the erosion of courage, as Solzhenitsyn once warned, and nurturing an appreciation for the arts that elevate the spirit. To elevate the spirit, one must sometimes detach from the political news cycle.

Finally, defending European heritage ultimately means transmitting it. Culture exists only through the people who carry it; the preservation of any culture depends first and foremost on the continuity of the founding population. As long as there are Europeans, European culture can experience transformations and renaissances.

A term popular on the right is “remigration.” How do you understand it?

The term “remigration” is indeed increasingly present in right-wing debates. For some, it is a mirage; for others, a necessity. So far, however, few concrete proposals have been made. To my knowledge, Martin Sellner, a key figure in the Austrian identitarian movement, is one of the few who has seriously considered how the remigration of culturally, economically, politically, and religiously unassimilable foreigners could succeed. Earlier this year, he published a small but very interesting book with Antaios (Remigration, ein Vorschlag) that has the merit of addressing this question seriously, avoiding the various fantasies that the concept often provokes. This is a path we must also pursue in the French-speaking world. After popularizing the idea of remigration online, we must now approach it with calm and reflection.

As Sellner shows, a remigration policy would essentially consist of incentives for voluntary departures, reforms to nationality law, or expulsions based on clearly defined criteria, such as criminal activity. By his own account, it is a process that would span 30 to 40 years.

Beyond demonstrating feasibility, Europeans must also be convinced of its desirability. Many are initially shocked by the notion of remigration, associating it with inhumane and unacceptable scenarios. Yet the opposite is true: as Aristotle noted in antiquity, multi-ethnic societies are inherently conflict-prone. The only humane scenario to prevent escalating violence is therefore a rational remigration policy.

France and Germany are Europe’s two largest nations. For Europe to function properly, they must move in the same direction. How can France and Germany collaborate ?

First, by critically examining their own national histories. Since the time of François I, France has often acted against Europe, for example by calling on non-European peoples to intervene against its neighbors. Germany, by contrast, has tended to envision Europe under German hegemony (as seen in the historical reinterpretation of the Holy Roman Empire as a proto-German state, when it was originally a European empire).

The French and Germans must therefore perform a historical reversal and recognize that these contradictory tendencies gradually led to Europe’s decline. While rewriting the past is pointless, I see the division of the Frankish Empire in 843—and the separation of the “West Franks” and “East Franks”—as Europe’s original catastrophe. As Austrian historian Jordis von Lohausen noted: “The European core space was henceforth divided into an Atlantic part and another facing the North Sea. This was Europe’s tragedy.”

Should we build a European “Vorfeld,” a network of structures to strengthen cultural and metapolitical ties ?

I assume you are referring to Benedikt Kaiser’s book Die Partei und ihr Vorfeld. He is entirely right to encourage his compatriots to create a right-wing “mosaic” that, despite comprising diverse tendencies, would push in the same direction and support each other, just as left-wing groups do. This “Vorfeld” must exist not only nationally but also as a trans-European network. Intellectuals and identitarian figures, at least, have a duty to look beyond their national reality and understand broader trends across Europe.

At its level, the Iliade Institute already seeks to build a European network, through partnerships with other think tanks and publishing houses (Instituto Carlos V, Passagio al Bosco, JungEuropa Verlag, etc.). I also discuss this with friends such as David Engels and Julien Rochedy, and we will certainly work toward this goal in the future.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Freilich

Ilaria Salis, an Italian MEP for the Green and Left Alliance won her mandate while sitting in a Hungarian prison. After being charged with multiple counts of attempted battery causing life-threatening bodily harm committed “in the framework of a criminal organisation”

It is suspected that in February 2023, Ilaria Salis along with 14 other co-conspirators as members of Hammerbande, a violent “anti-fascist” gang that uses melee and chemical agents to attack people it deems political enemies, arrived in Budapest in a premeditated manner in order to incite fear through violent methods in whom they thought wanted to commemorate soldiers involved in the defence of Hungary in the Second World War.

The majority of the anti-fascist terrorists who carried out the attacks in Budapest two years ago were German (but there were also Italians, an Albanian and a Syrian) They were all allegedly part of, the Hammerbande “Hammer Gang” terrorist group, which was founded in Leipzig in 2015, and even by communist standards their tactics were brutal.

Here are a few examples of their terrorism, all credit to the Austrian Heimatkurier portal.

On July 4, 2016, a local organizer of the then-operating PEGIDA (Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes, or Patriots Against the Islamization of the West) in Leipzig was beaten with hammers in front of his apartment.

On October 30, 2018, an activist from the Junge Nationalisten organization in Wurzen was so badly beaten that his spine was broken in several places, his kneecap was broken, and he suffered 14 other injuries. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance in a life-threatening condition.

On January 7, 2019, Frank Magnitz, the state leader of the AfD in Bremen and the party’s representative in the Bundestag, was attacked in the city center of Bremen by cowardly antifa, who deliberately hit him on the head with batons. They wanted to kill him, but fortunately for the politician, a worker passing by distracted the terrorists. Magnitz was also hospitalized with life-threatening injuries.

On January 18, 2019, about twenty people were ambushed at a train station in Dessau-Rosslau as they were heading to an event commemorating the four waves of British and American bombings between February 13 and 15, 1945, in which some 200,000 innocent civilians were burned alive with phosphorus bombs. The beatings left one man with a brain hemorrhage, a broken knee and ankle, and another with a staple in his face.

On February 15, 2020, three men and a 15-year-old boy were also attacked by Antifa at the train station in Wurzen, also coming from an event commemorating the victims of the Dresden bombing, and several others were seriously injured.

On July 11, 2020, Antifa members posing as parcel delivery-drivers in Dresden beat a right-wing man to death with hammers.

On March 11, 2021, terrorists posing as police officers rang the doorbell of the chairman of the Junge Nationalisten organization, Paul Rzehaczek. The young man, a father of three, who answered the door was tied up and his ankles were broken with hammers so that he would never be able to work as a driving instructor again. He was also sprayed with tear gas and doused with chlorine as he left.

On May 28, 2021, a right-wing football fan was attacked in Erfurt with the same trick. He was tied up, his legs were broken, and he was doused with chlorine, just like his wife, who was in her third trimester.

On January 12, 2023, two members of the small right-wing party Neue Stärke, or New Strength, were brutally attacked in Erfurt. This time, the terrorists also used an axe, one of the victims suffered a severe skull fracture.

In addition, they broke into the homes of right-wing people in their absence on several occasions, destroying them and making them uninhabitable.

The real question is, how could they pull this off?

Pulled from an article by Ágoston Balázs

“The question arises as to how the terrorists knew the addresses of their victims. Well, the criminals were integrated into the German state organization. For example, an employee of the Leipzig city hall, Henry Aulich, had access to a lot of personal data as a legal administrator, and since he himself was a member of the terrorist gang, he misused it. Aulich was also in contact with a communist member of the Saxony state parliament, Juliane Nagel. But the SPD Interior Minister of the recently defeated German government, Nancy Faeser, also openly sympathized with antifa, so she can be classified as a psychic accessory to crime.”

Ilaria Salis was released from custody last May with a bail of 16 million forints (about €40.000), placed under criminal supervision and after her election the coercive measures against her were lifted. Ilaria Salis and the left-wing press, criticized Hungarian prison conditions and authorities, they portray her as a victim, deny the evidence and of her case she states:

“I know that I am on the right side of history and I do not want to be convicted for my political views.“

This is not someone who wants discussion. Her stance is clear: she is not a democratic actor. She should not have immunity and should face the full force of Hungarian law. The EU has justified and endorsed her alleged crimes by giving her immunity; we cannot stand for this!

Source: https://demokrata.hu/vilag/ideje-meregteleniteni-956716/

Subscribe now

About the authors :

Martin Kuziel serves as the International Relations for the Czech party Svobodní and a member of the NGO Voxeuropa.

Voxeuropa is a patriotic organization at the European level. It functions as a media outlet, a network, and a think tank. Its initiative works towards building a European metapolitics and strengthening cooperation among the continent’s political decision-makers.

François-Xavier Gicquel, Director of Operations at SOS Chrétiens d’Orient, warns of the gradual disappearance of Christians from the Holy Land and the Middle East, caught between Hamas persecution, Israeli pressure, and sectarian violence. He calls on Europeans to revive a diplomacy rooted in their Christian heritage and to offer concrete support to these endangered communities.

Matisse Royer: Could you introduce yourself to our readers?

François-Xavier Gicquel (SOS Chrétiens d’Orient): SOS Chrétiens d’Orient is an NGO founded in 2013 that now operates in eight countries — Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Armenia — with the mission of helping Christian communities remain on their land, the land of their forefathers.

Matisse Royer: Can you describe the current presence of SOS Chrétiens d’Orient in the Holy Land, particularly in the areas affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

François-Xavier Gicquel: SOS Chrétiens d’Orient has been working in Jordan since 2015, from the Syrian border to the Red Sea, among all the Christian communities of the country. Since the beginning of the war, we have carried out two humanitarian aid missions in Gaza, but our objective this year is to strengthen and expand our presence there.

Matisse Royer: What are the main difficulties faced by Christian populations in this region today?

François-Xavier Gicquel: It depends on which part of the region we’re talking about. If we speak of the Holy Land in particular, Christians face two major problems. The first, in Gaza for example, is obviously persecution by Hamas. The number of Christians there has almost been divided by ten since Hamas came to power, due to daily persecution. But there is also persecution from the Israeli authorities. As Palestinian residents, Christians of the Holy Land are considered Arabs and therefore endure the same harassment, humiliation, and daily economic and social hardships as other Palestinians.

If we look at the broader Middle East, the situation varies by country — we could talk about it for hours. In Lebanon, we know the sad and devastating economic crisis, which followed first a political crisis, then the economic collapse, the explosion at the Beirut port, and finally the recent military crisis that hit the country. In Iraq, we’re dealing with sectarian violence. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the civil war has never really ended. Sunnis and Shiites fought for ten years, which led to the emergence of mafia-like groups that targeted the weakest — namely Christians, who are isolated — through kidnappings, ransom demands, land seizures, daily humiliation, and so on. Then came the rise of the Islamic State, which followed the same logic. Even today, tensions remain beneath the surface, and these mafia groups persist, making life miserable, especially for minorities.

In Syria, we know the situation well. After the iron-fisted years of Bashar al-Assad, former Al-Qaeda affiliates came to power last December. Since then, there have already been atrocities committed — first against the Alawites, then against the Druze — as well as terrorist attacks against churches. Whether the government itself is responsible is impossible to say. I can’t read hearts and minds. What is certain, however, is that these acts are committed by groups close to the government, groups that once supported it. The key question is whether the government has the capacity and the will to put an end to these acts of violence. The future of Syria’s Christians depends on that.

In Jordan, the situation is relatively good for Christians, but tensions still exist due to the geopolitical context and the presence of radical minorities who sometimes subject Christians to discrimination and humiliation. That’s the general picture in the surrounding countries.

Matisse Royer: How does this conflict concretely affect Christian communities in Gaza, the West Bank, or Jerusalem? How do they live their relations with Jewish and Muslim communities?

François-Xavier Gicquel: I should say first that I’ve never personally been to Gaza, so I don’t have firsthand experience there. But for Christians in Gaza or the West Bank, they are Palestinians like the others. They suffer the same bombings, the same attacks. Sadly, we frequently see churches hit by Israeli airstrikes, or Christians shot by Israeli soldiers. They endure what all Gazans and West Bank residents endure.

I was recently in southern Lebanon, and I witnessed many villages completely destroyed — including entirely Christian villages, without any Shiite presence, which means they couldn’t even be suspected of harboring Hezbollah fighters. Yet they were razed to the ground. We can see that Israel’s policy is indiscriminate regarding the populations living in these territories.

As for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, this war — though tensions have existed for a long time — has exacerbated those tensions, making life very difficult for Arab residents. Discrimination exists, and therefore Christians suffer the same. There are also, of course, attacks by extremist Jewish groups — every year we see spitting, insults against Christian processions and buildings, or the return of taxes previously lifted from Christian religious properties. That is the overall situation of Christians in the Holy Land.

Matisse Royer: Is there a real risk of the complete disappearance of Christians from the Holy Land?

François-Xavier Gicquel: Disappearance, I’m not sure — Christians have always lived there. We’re not just talking about a religion but about a people who have inhabited these lands for millennia. Will they disappear? I don’t know. Many show extraordinary faithfulness and resilience. Will their numbers decrease? Yes, certainly. Will it decrease drastically? Unfortunately, yes, there is a real risk. We see this pattern across the entire region. The fact that it is also happening in the Holy Land shows that it’s not merely about one religion, such as Islam, but part of a broader dynamic — the reduction of Christians to minority status. And that’s profoundly sad, because Christians are not meant to be a minority in their own countries; they are part of the national mosaic.

In Syria, Christians are an integral part of the nation — Syrians of Christian faith. The same is true in Iraq, where most Christians are of Assyrian origin — the very roots of the country’s people. Though numerically smaller, they remain full citizens. Yet today, these populations are being divided and reduced to minority status, which limits their rights, visibility, and representation. This is what makes it so difficult for Christians to defend their rights, to imagine a future on their land, or even to be recognized as full citizens of countries that have always been theirs.

Matisse Royer: Do you have direct contacts with local Churches? What message are they conveying today?

François-Xavier Gicquel: Yes, of course. We are beginning our work in the Holy Land by developing a network already well established through our work in Jordan — particularly with the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Greek Orthodox Church. As for the rest of the region — Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan — yes, we are in contact with all the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. We speak with patriarchs and bishops, and on a daily basis we work directly with priests. That’s what makes us unique: our offices are located on the ground, and we live among them. So, unlike organizations that give advice from offices in Paris, we share their daily struggles and truly feel their pain. It’s important to remind them that they have a vital role — as witnesses, as cultural bearers, and as spiritual anchors. Their brothers and sisters, and indeed the world, depend on them, because Christ asked us to bear witness to His message. We must remain strong in adversity and never lose hope. That’s why we chose not merely to offer words of encouragement, but to live among them — to show that we will not abandon them, that we will stand beside them all the way, and do our best to help them continue carrying Christ’s message.

Matisse Royer: “Christian NGOs = crusading logic”: how do you respond to that?

François-Xavier Gicquel: What we do is the exact opposite of what we’re accused of. Our main priority is to strengthen national cohesion. We don’t view Christians as a minority in a majority, or as an isolated bubble within an Arab cultural sphere. To us, Christians are the original inhabitants of these lands — even if today they are majority Muslim or Jewish, in Israel’s case — and they have their full and rightful place there. Not as a minority struggling to survive or as a rival faction — they are one of the integral components of these nations. Whatever position Westerners might take, that’s a lasting reality. We are not there to change the political landscape or the demographic balance of these countries. We are there to enable Christians to live peacefully alongside their Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Israeli, and Palestinian brothers and sisters — not in a logic of confrontation, but of shared construction.

Matisse Royer: What is your reading of the role of Western powers — and especially Europe — in the (mis)management of the conflict?

François-Xavier Gicquel: What shocks me in France is that it’s unable to take a clear position on this conflict, which reveals much. France has always had a clear Arab policy, based on balanced and measured positions. Since October 7, we’ve seen constant reversals. That reflects both a perception problem and a lack of understanding of the region — as well as a lack of political courage — which causes French authorities to give in to street and public pressure rather than acting in line with our long-term geopolitical interests and the common good.

The American position is also surprising. We knew Donald Trump as a fervent supporter of Israel, yet even he seems taken aback by the radicalism of the Israeli state and Mr. Netanyahu. This demonstrates both the weakness of the West and the radicalization of Israel, which has caught an unprepared West off guard with such a brutal escalation.

Matisse Royer: The AfD in Germany is adopting a more neutral stance. Should the French right follow the same path?

François-Xavier Gicquel: Absolutely. It’s essential to maintain a certain distance and balance in geopolitics. Many nationalist or sovereigntist parties in Europe — particularly in France — often align themselves either for reasons of political rebranding (which aren’t sustainable long term) or due to ignorance of the topic, reacting emotionally in the short term. One cannot respond to an international conflict without taking into account history, national interests, and the common good. Prudence is essential — we must not blindly align with one camp.

What should guide us are two things: the pursuit of the common good and the absolute defense of human dignity and the value of human life — as Cardinal Pizzaballa, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, reminds us. Violations of human life occur both on the side of Hamas and on the side of the Israeli authorities. We must adopt a balanced and just approach.

Matisse Royer : Do Europe’s “Judeo-Christian roots” justify unconditional support for Israel?

François-Xavier Gicquel: I don’t believe in the expression “Judeo-Christian roots” as the foundation of Europe. Europe is first and foremost the heir of the Hellenic and Roman worlds, enriched by Germanic and Celtic contributions, and deeply shaped by Christendom. The Jewish people have played an important and fruitful role, but this was co-constructed — not a foundational identity. In foreign policy, two compass points must guide us: our interests (and it’s hard to see Europe’s interest in the destruction of Gaza or the West Bank and the ensuing migratory consequences) and the pursuit of the common good, which entails the principle of a “just war” — as Saint Augustine taught, meaning proportionality. As Europeans, we cannot support a war that is not just.

Matisse Royer: Should European diplomacy be rooted in the Christian heritage?

François-Xavier Gicquel: Yes. The Christian heritage doesn’t dictate sides, it dictates principles: presence, service to the common good, witness, and the doctrine of “just war” — proportionality, human dignity. It means denouncing any attack on human dignity and life, wherever it occurs.

Matisse Royer: What are your current volunteer missions?

François-Xavier Gicquel: We currently have missions open in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Egypt. Missions in Syria are suspended pending clarification of the situation but will resume as soon as possible. Volunteering is at the heart of our work: presence, reconstruction, daily projects, sharing joys and sorrows. We invite young Europeans to build tangible fraternity and live a deeply human and spiritual experience alongside Eastern communities.

Matisse Royer: Where do you find hope, and how can we act concretely?

François-Xavier Gicquel: First, in Christ — we are never alone. And in the results of eleven years of action, whose fruits we can see: from the family to the neighborhood, from the village to the wider community. The union of the spiritual and the material sustains our determination to continue.

Two main paths :

1. Support initiatives serving Eastern Christians — through prayer, volunteering, and donations to help them envision a future on their land.

2. Political engagement: educate yourself (in geopolitics and Christian doctrine), take part, and urge elected officials to promote a European policy that is both engaged and balanced in the Middle East — one that guarantees stability, peace, and lasting prosperity.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Bei Freilich

On September 10 in Paris, the anger over taxes that had been brewing on social media could have brought people together across the political divide. But as always, the far left seized on the opportunity, turning popular discontent into a militant outlet. The right, meanwhile, did nothing. It simply observed. The result: the streets occupied by the same people and anger that only benefited its opponents.

This episode is part of a toxic political climate. The Bayrou government fell after the National Assembly rejected the budget. Sébastien Lecornu, appointed Prime Minister, embodies nothing but empty continuity: just another interchangeable bourgeois centrist, symbolizing the sterility of the system. In this political vacuum, the streets have become a battlefield—and it is controlled by the left.

According to the Ministry of the Interior, “Bloquons tout” brought together 197,000 participants, 800 actions, 675 arrests, 549 police custody cases, and 34 injured law enforcement officers. These figures appear massive, but they mask a simple reality: only the far left drove this mobilization.

In the early afternoon, several thousand people had already gathered at Place de la République: Palestinian flags, undocumented migrant groups, naked migrants surrounded by punks with dogs. It was a grotesque, folkloric scene, where unrefined petty bourgeoisie mingled with pot-bellied communist activists. At Châtelet, the usual leftist routine unfolded: burning trash cans, bottle throwing, anti-police and pro-Palestinian slogans. In short, the same actors, the same scenes.

But it was in the evening, at Porte des Lilas, that the spectacle took on another dimension. There, we saw organized violence. Dozens of activists methodically erected barricades. A huge blaze consumed trash cans, electric batteries, and street furniture. A 20-year-old woman even set about burning a bus shelter—as if burning a glass shelter could bring down the state. Stupidity elevated to a political act.

The firefighters who came to put out the fire were surrounded and threatened by a dozen young people. The arrival of hundreds of riot police allowed them to be cleared away. Then the usual mechanics kicked in: mortars, tear gas, LBDs. The far left, for their part, retreated in scattered order, hiding in parking lots or stores, only to reappear and throw bottles. A guerrilla war in the gutters, led by excited marginalized individuals.

In this chaos, the absurdity was total. The far left struck at random, as did the CRS. I paid the price: isolated, far from the clashes, I was hit with a baton. Such is the tactical genius of the police: strike those who are not participating and let those who are setting fires get away. Talking to some of the CRS officers, you could sense their dismay: overwhelmed, they were mainly picking up projectiles and doing some screening.

Beyond the images of violence, one reality stands out: the radical left has managed to organize a militant youth movement. It is organized, ready for confrontation, and gives the left a permanent lever of pressure.

The right, on the other hand, is not in a position of strength in this area. It has no mobilized youth and no street strategy. With the exception of a few pockets—recently in Vienna around the issue of remigration—it remains invisible. It clings to the idea that the ballot box is enough, even as the left occupies the streets and imposes its agenda by force.

The lesson is clear: the left knows that the streets are a political weapon. If the right does not learn this lesson in turn, if it does not conquer the terrain, it will lose. Not only the elections, but the cultural battle and the future. Because one thing is certain: in the streets as in politics, absence always comes at a price. And on September 10, the right once again chose absence.

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Aarvoll, thank you for agreeing to this interview. Can you start by introducing yourself?

My name is Eric Orwoll and I'm president and co-founder of the Return to the Land association. For the last ten years I've been promoting intentional communities as a solution for those concerned that rapidly changing demographics are undermining the integrety of our society. I've also made videos on Platonic philosophy and paleoanthropology.

Eric, can you tell us where the Return to the Land project came from?

After I published a video in 2023 promoting the idea of a network of intentional communities and media centers some men reached out to me that wanted to help. We had weekly calls and discussed plans for a few months, then met up in September of 2023 to work on some infrastructure for a camp on land that I owned at the time in southern Missouri. While we were together working on that we looked at land available nearby and ultimately decided to pitch in to get a larger community off the ground. Our current secretary, Peter Csere, suggested the first version of our legal framework, and we've been developing it ever since.

When did you decide that living “among your own kind” had become a vital necessity?

If we don't choose to live together then what is unique about our way of life, and unique about us as a race, will eventually disappear. Other groups aren't coming into Western countries by the millions simply to assimilate into our culture and preserve our traditions, they also often come to create outposts of their own culture and worldviews. White people have a shared history going back many thousands of years and the values and traditions we developed came from who we are as people. In evolutionary history we separated from Sub-Saharan Africans more than 70 thousand years ago and from East Asians more than 40 thousand years ago. Europeans, by contrast, have an intertwined genetic heritage spanning the last 40 thousand years. We've developed our own ways of thinking not just as individual cultures and ethnic groups, but at a deeper level as a race evolving together over tens of thousands of years.

The way you look, the way your brain is structured, the way you think and behave are all, to a greater or lesser extent, determined by those thousands of years of shared development in the European continent. If you don't want to preserve that, then you don't have respect for who you are. If you replace the indigenous peoples of Europe and the heritage stock of the USA with people from the third world (who often have much higher reproductive rates) our societies will be fundamentally altered. No one knows exactly what that will look like, so if you care about the fate of your children and grandchildren you should think about creating communities that you have some level of control over that will be dedicated to preserving your way of life as a distinct people.

Was it a spiritual or political intuition, or simply a pragmatic response to a situation you were experiencing?

It was all those things. Providence guided the development of the different races of humanity for a reason. I don't think we should be deeply concerned about biodiversity and saving endangered species and sub-species in the animal world, but have no sense of responsibility to preserve the unique features that fate has given us as human beings. God and nature don't create us as individuals but as parts of larger traditions and ecosystems, and preserving our way of being in the world as given to us by our creator is a way of paying respect to providence and trusting natural law. By nature people have the instinct to protect their own people, and to prefer their own people; it's only prolongued indoctrination that breaks down that instinct. I think that instinct in present in all life for the greater good, and I think if we design our societies around an effort to contravent natural law we're doomed to fail.

Politically and pragmatically I am concerned about the future of my children and grandchildren. It is a fact that many members of other groups don't like White people and won't treat my children as equals. Other groups work together for their common good. If we don't work together for our common good we'll be abandoning our children to fend for themselves instead of giving them allies and friends.

What is the community like today on the ground ? Who lives there, how is it structured?

We're a small rural community of only a few dozen people. We spend time developing our own homesteads and aren't very centrally organized. We meet up for optional community dinners once a week. In some ways it's a just a typical neighbourhood and we mostly mind our own work and personal lives, although we do have to manage a budget and take care of some communal infrastructure such as roads and a small community center. That is done primarily through the board of managers of the company that owns our land here. The board can be replaced through elections and they publish meeting minutes and invite considerations from the general membership.

What are your selection criteria for those who wish to join you?

We are looking for people who identify with their European heritage and who hold traditional European values that are attested in historically significant spiritual or philosophical texts. Hardline atheists or people advocating LGBT values probably wouldn't be accepted. Decisions are made on a case by case basis though.

Your project emphasizes “community.” How do you define “identity,” and why is it central to your vision?

The identity of a community is the sum of those attributes that lend it functional coherence and ground its self concept. We believe that communities will function better if their self concepts are rooted in identities that align with the identities of their ancestors.

A thing's essence, what it is, precedes a thing's activities, so before we worry about how our group should behave, we should think about who our group is, what is has in common, and what delineates those who can share in that identity from those that can't.

Is being white simply a matter of genetics/ethnicity, or is it something deeper, cultural, spiritual, civilizational?

European heritage means participation in an unbroken line of genetic and cultural transmission over tens of thousands of years. It's deeper than Western civilization and it transcends any particular European cultural identity. We don't rationally comprehend the totality of what is given to us by that complex of traditions and inheritance because it a holistic living system, and our rational comprehension is only a small part of that system.

You are accused of supremacism. How do you respond to those who caricature you as an extremist?

If a view is uncommon that doesn't mean it's untrue. I don't mind being considered an extremist if my views are extreme, but it shouldn't disqualify me from public discourse. If we only ever allowed middle of the road views civil society would be pretty stifling.

However I'm not a White supremacist. I believe all people have a right to self-determination, including White people. If a community wants to form of their own free will and wants to govern themselves, as long as they don't seek to harm anyone else, I would never want to stop them. Loving your own people and wanting to provide special care for your own people doesn't mean you have to believe they are uniquely good or that others are bad, and it doesn't mean you want your people to rule over anyone else.

What criticisms do you have of the traditional conservative right, particularly Trump?

They aren't even beginning to address the fundamental problems in American society, and their allegiance is to their donors.

Does American politics still have meaning for you? Or is it just about building autonomous communities?

My politics is about creating an environment where peaceful autonomous communities can exist. My own political philosophy is that our government should allow people to freely associate and to experiment with different types of political and social arrangements. Not only does that give us the opportunity to empirically test the effectiveness of various social models, but, morally speaking, I think that should be a universal principle that we shouldn't tolerate as an international community, regimes that oppress ethnic, racial or religious groups, or peaceful intentional communities of any kind, and deny them the ability to self organize.

Who are your political role models?

Pythagoras and Jesus.

From a European perspective, your project echoes certain identity movements. Recently, there was a large demonstration in Vienna for Remigration. This concept has become very popular, particularly thanks to Martin Sellner and various identity groups. How do you perceive this identity awakening in Western Europe? Is there a dichotomy between remigration and communitarianism?

In some countries remigration has a legitimate legal and ethical basis, but it's not implied in any way by communitarianism. Whether it's a legitimate politcal goal depends on the country, and I wouldn't presume to judge from a position of ignorance which countries ought to repatriate large numbers of residents.

I don't advocate for any deportations of American citizens. I do think that we've had very loose borders and a lax immigration policy for too long and it ought to be tightened up.

You are facing unprecedented repression from the media and judicial apparatus in the US. Can you tell us about that?

The media attacks have fallen flat and it's only gotten us more support. The Arkansas attorney general looked at our case and judged so far that we're not breaking the law. We will probably face an explicit legal battle in the future, but so far all the attention has only benefited us and our cause.

What is your message to our European readers?

If the preservation of your heritage and identity is important to you, whether or not there's a possibility of achieving that through national political action, you should consider forming intentional communities to begin working and living more closely with those that share your values. We should raise our children in safe environments where our values and history are affirmed regardless of political concerns. We should be more self sufficient and connected to nature, regardless of demographic change.

Forming wholesome communities with those you care about is a worthwhile goal in its own right, and it just might allow for some new possibilities in political organizing down the line.

Abonnez-vous maintenant

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Bei Freilich

Under a heavy but tension-free sky, nearly 600 demonstrators gathered in Vienna around the Identitarian Movement. Coming from Austria, Germany, Brittany, and elsewhere, the participants marched through the heart of Vienna chanting, “Send them back.” The message was clear: Europe is claiming its right to historical continuity. This is no longer a national struggle, but a nascent European consciousness.

Far-left chaos: counter-demonstration

Faced with this disciplined march, anti-fascists called for the procession to be blocked. From early afternoon, insults, vulgarities, and other forms of violence were directed at the peaceful demonstrators. Left-wing YouTuber Marcant (150k subscribers) acknowledged that the demonstration was very well organized. In the confusion caused by police intervention against the most violent anti-fascists, three activists from the Breton group “An Tour Tan” and the Norman group “Les Normaux” managed to capture two anti-fascist banners. The contrast was striking: on one side, a calm and organized column; on the other, urban chaos inherited from years of media tolerance towards the far left.

Asymmetrical media coverage

The event received relatively extensive media coverage, especially in Austria and Germany. Several patriotic media outlets, such as AUF1, Info Direkt, Freilich, Breizh Info, and Ligne Droite, reported on the demonstration without demonizing it. But the mainstream German-language media took a very different approach. Some newspapers referred to a “neo-fascist demonstration,” accusing the organizers of spreading “hate speech.” The word “remigration,” which has become central to the right, is systematically presented as a racist concept. This rhetorical device is now well known and convinces only a minority of activist journalists and violent groups.

The key role of images : Filmkunstkollektiv

The presence of Filmkunstkollektiv, a German audiovisual collective that documents patriotic movements (AfD, FPÖ, Génération Identitaire, etc.), marked a turning point in the battle for images.

Professional, well-equipped, and effective, they offer a visual counter-narrative to media propaganda. They embody a new generation capable of competing with mainstream media structures.

To go further and understand the vision that drives the participants, we gave a voice to the key figures of the European identity movement. Their comments, gathered on the spot in Vienna, shed light on the deep motivations behind the mobilization.

Subscribe now

Yannick Wagemann is a 23-year-old student from Vienna. He is the leader of the Austrian identitarian movement and the organizer of the demonstration in Vienna.

What message do you want to send from Vienna ?

“Our message, which is once again a slogan in English this year, clearly and succinctly expresses what Europe needs, namely the return of people from other cultures who have arrived in Europe in recent years and decades.

”Send them back" is Vienna's message to all European elites! “

What exactly do you mean by ”remigration"?

Remigration describes a comprehensive political program that aims to reverse the migration movements of recent years and decades through various measures. In addition to deporting illegal immigrants, it includes, for example, measures to increase assimilation pressure in order to encourage people from other cultures who do not wish to assimilate to return home.

Maximilian Märkl is the spokesperson for the German identity movement.

Why are you in Vienna ?

We are here to represent the youth of Europe who are not prepared to abandon their homeland. Millions of people support us on the internet. But repression prevents everyone from showing their face. We are here for everyone and we are flying our colors in Vienna's beautiful 1st district. In doing so, we are sending a clear message: “Send them back!” We want our homeland back!

Germany is experiencing very negative immigration. What consequences do you think this has for German society?

The consequences are now so serious that no one can ignore them anymore. In all major German cities, the effects of foreign overpopulation are being felt in city centers. There is hardly a village left without an asylum center. The consequences are disastrous, both culturally and organizationally. Whether it's social welfare, the healthcare system, or housing, the German population is feeling the effects every day. But at the same time, a strong youth is emerging that, unlike many older people, is no longer willing to look away. And it is this struggle against challenges that makes the younger generation strong.

Manuel Corchia is an artist and video maker. He has also been politically active for almost seven years. He is co-director of the Swiss movement Junge Tat.

Why are you coming to Vienna? What is your message?

Switzerland is one of the oldest countries in Europe and has always stood for independence and a unique ethnocultural identity. It is precisely these foundations that we want to preserve and defend. But now we too have been hit hard by migration. It poses an existential threat to the Swiss people. Our message to Europe is as old as it is valid:

Fight together, live independently.

This is the only way to preserve the peoples of Europe and lead them to their optimum.

Switzerland is often perceived as a stable and prosperous country. Why do you think remigration should be a political priority there?

In the generation of “Swiss” under the age of 15, the proportion of migrants is already close to 58%. This majority comes mainly from non-European groups with high birth rates. Replacement migration is therefore having a profound impact and fundamentally changing our country. That is why remigration is an absolute political priority for us. For what would Switzerland be without the Swiss? What would Europe be without Europeans ?

Martin Sellner is an identitarian intellectual. He co-founded the identity movement in Austria in 2012. He is the most demonized activist in Europe and has naturally emerged as the leader of the European identity movement.

Can you tell us why you are here?

For more than a decade, I have been working to create a new metapolitical patriotic force in Europe. I am fighting for remigration and, above all, for freedom of speech. I believe it is our duty to resist the demographic replacement of our people and the Islamization of our continent. I am proud to be one of the most censored activists because of my commitment.

What is your strategic vision for Europe?

My vision is simple: the ethnocultural continuity of Europe must be ensured. Not as a living museum, but as a proud and strong global player, rooted in its peoples and traditions. Strategically, we are pursuing a metapolitical approach: through activism, both on the streets and on the internet, we want to change the discourse, shift the Overton window, and prepare for real, profound political change.

There is a huge propaganda campaign against you. You are accused of being unconstitutional. However, reading your book, we find a more balanced message. How would you summarize your vision?

I am absolutely not the caricature that the media portrays. We are neither extremists nor driven by hatred. Our demands are reasonable and measured, our means are nonviolent. In a world that celebrates all identities except European identity, we simply want to enjoy the same right as all other peoples: we want to remain who we are. As ethnopluralists, we respect all cultures and identities, and we love and preserve our own.

Do you think Trump's United States has a positive role to play for Europe?

Trump's presidency has marked a break in the globalist matrix. He has shown that even a political revolution within a system is possible. What won him the election was his pro-border stance and his anti-globalist and anti-woke messages. He now uses the term “remigration.” It remains to be seen whether he will deliver on his promises in a way that satisfies his supporters at the end of his term. What is already clear is the positive reinforcement of our culture war. But Europe must chart its own course. America will not and cannot save us. That said, alliances and exchanges with dissident networks in the US are beneficial. We can learn from their culture and their information war, especially their use of memes. Despite the differences, there is an affinity between our mindsets.

You often talk about Europe, not as a mere market, but as a civilization. What do you want to build with those who are here today?

The real Europe is not represented by the Brussels elite. It is not just about GDP figures, contracts, or carbon targets. Europe is its peoples. The peoples who built the cathedrals and castles, who imagined the myths and languages.

The future we want to build is truly European. An alliance of peoples and nations that retain their differences but remain united in important moments.

The success of this event, despite attempts at intimidation and media caricatures, confirms one thing: remigration is making a dramatic entry into mainstream discourse. It is becoming a legitimate political horizon, supported by a deeply rooted European youth. This march in Vienna is a starting point. Public opinion, confronted with the failures of assimilation, rising violence, and declining freedoms, is beginning to listen to what the left calls “fascism.”

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok | Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

And in other languages :

Chez Breizh-info

Bei Offensiv!

Interview with Alice Weidel, chairwoman of the AfD, at CPAC in Budapest with Paul Klemm. She talks about Elon Musk, public debt, and the fight against socialists. The excesses of European governments call for a coordinated response. Voxeuropa is working on it, follow us!

European realities call for European responses.

Abonnez-vous maintenant

Located at the edge of Europe, on the Atlantic coast, Portugal has a rich history: once at the head of a vast empire, it left its mark on the world through its conquests and cultural influence. Today, we welcome Afonso Gonçalves, a rising star on the European and Portuguese politic scene. A committed activist, he made a name for himself on YouTube by hosting debates in public places, in the style of Charlie Kirk. A defender of a strong national identity and a supporter of “remigration,” he seeks to challenge public opinion through his speeches. In this interview, we look back on his activism, his convictions, and his vision for Portugal and Europe.

Afonso, could you introduce yourself to our readers? What has been your career path and what is your movement ?

My name is Afonso Gonçalves, I am 24 years old and the founder and leader of RECONQUISTA, the most influential meta-political movement. Our movement started in my living room after I drew support from young identitarians who were inspired by my in person protests of degenerate events like drag queen story hour and after my sudden influence on the online debate on X and Youtube. We started in October 2023 and now have more than 800 members and close to 100 thousand followers across all social media platforms.

Your inspiration seems to be drawn from Portuguese history, particularly the Reconquista. How has this period shaped your vision of the world and your commitment to it?

Normally I say that there have been 2 RECONQUISTAS: the Christian RECONQUISTA of the Iberian Peninsula which Portugal concluded by taking Algarve in 1249 and the Restoration of independence from Castille in 1640. So every 400 years we take our country back and the time to do that has come again.

You defend a strong national identity. What do you consider to be the essential pillars of this Portuguese identity?

Identity is the cornerstone of our concept of existence. It is our conscience of individuality and specificity that led to our historic independence and to our great successes of the past. Our identity consists of a certain ethno-cultural dynamic that is very unique and should be cherished and defended, most like other European identities.

Portugal has recently seen the rise of the Chega party, which shares some of your ideas. How would you describe the current political situation in your country?

Chega broke the de facto 2 party system between PS (socialists in name, social democrats in policy) and PSD (social democrats with liberalistic and conservative tendencies). Both of these 2 parties would support the Republican Party in the USA, for context. In 2024 Chega had 18% of the votes and elected 50 of the 230 MEP´s. They are a conservative populist party whose militancy basis support nationalistic ideas and our work has been aimed at influencing Chega aswell as other parties to adopt identitarian view points and support Remigration. Recently, after we have defended it for 16 months, one of their most influential MEP´s defended Remigration in parliament which we consider a metapolitical success and a huge step in the growth of the Chega party.

Do you see any major differences between the Portuguese right-wing and that of other countries, such as France with the RN or Italy with the League ? What lessons could Portugal learn from these movements ?

Chega is very similar to RN in the sense that it has recently embraced a more social and left leaning approach to economics, mixed with some elements from liberal economic thought. They want to tax the extraordinary profits of the banks to help the housing market whilst wanting to cut a lot of taxes to the companies. In this way they behave like a catch all party and this has been a successful approach with polls predicting 17/18% of the vote despite some recent controversies within the party. They are heavily dependent on the charisma and communicational skills of their president, André Ventura and have a lack of intellectual thinkers within the party who can establish its ideology on stronger terms, but they are also improving in this department.

What do you think of Portuguese youth today ? Are they lost to your ideas, or ready to embrace them ?

We have a worrying scenario amongst the youth – 70% of our university students want to emigrate (according to some studies) whilst 30% have already done so after finishing their bachelors degree. However, there is still a patriotic sentiment amongst the youth and radical (but correct) ideas are increasingly growing. Chega (and its most nationalistic wing) are the most heavily supported party from 18-32 and the youth wing of Chega is pro remigration.

Some of your ideas, such as “remigration”, are the subject of passionate debate. Can you explain what you mean by this term and why you see it as an essential solution ?

Remigration consists of a phased and comprehensive operation of fiscal, economic, judicial, diplomatic, social and cultural policies leading to the removal of non originally native citizens from a given territory, based on multiple previously determined criteria. Remigration also includes 2 dynamics: Deportation (involuntary) and Repatration (Voluntary). I follow Martin Sellner´s 3 phases and 3 groups model.

1. Group A: illegals, fake asylum seekers, no residency status (deported on the short term);

2. Group B: legals, residency status but a cultural, economical or social burden (change immigration and nationality laws, cancel residency status);

3. Group C: Non assimilated citizens (create economical social and cultural pressure to force voluntary return).

This is the only solution to undo decades of unwanted forced multiculturalism and guarantee the survival and prosperity of our people and its necessities.

You are a fervent advocate of “remigration”. Can you explain how you see it being implemented in Portugal and Europe ?

I believe until 2030 we will (and must) have a political and ideological remigrationist majority in Portugal and Europe, opt out of certain treaties and start deporting illegals (Group A), then we must address the Groups B and C during the next decade and undo the decades of self inflicted wounds through unwanted anti-european propaganda.

Some people criticize this concept as unrealistic or extreme. How do you respond to those who say that remigration is impossible in practice ?

In 2025 remigration is a really simple process with all of the technology and logistical resources available to any European country. Operation Wetback in the US and remigration from the Fiji Islands are 2 examples of mass remigration that was employed with much less technological means than we posses 2 today. We also see huge numbers of immigrants coming in to our lands every week and we must look at migration as a two way process instead of a one way process. Just like they can come here uninvited and in unprecedented numbers they also can, must and will go back in big numbers until we have a home to call our own again. It´s also much less extreme than the consequences of mass immigration like the crime, drugs, rapes, terror attacks, destruction of a culture and a people and the demographic replacement of natives that we see happening in Europe. Remigration is not extreme, it is actually a very moderate and reasonable policy that is a win win for all parties included.

Luís Montenegro's center-right government tightened immigration rules in 2024. Is this a victory for your ideas, or do you think we need to go further ?

The current government by Luís Montenegro appears to have tightened immigration rules but in fact its just a cosmetic operation to attract the right wing vote. In fact, they have signed a number of agreements and laws that facilitate legal immigration, promoted education programs aimed at integrating unwanted immigrants and invested tax payers money into residences for some of the 400 thousand + illegal immigrants they have “legalized”. Their minister responsible for immigration has also named “remigration” as the policy defended by the far right and made that idea inimical to his own ministry which is a huge victory as the lines of political confrontation are not any longer left v right, socialist v liberal or conservative v progressive but remigrationists v extincionists (those who defend the extinction of our people)

Chega talks about remigration, but remains vague. Do you blame them for opportunistically co-opting your ideas, or are you working with them on this issue ?

In fact at the moment it is not a worry of mine that they remain vague; our priority is to make remigration mainstream. I also don´t worry that they will co-opt our ideas because we will make sure that the perceived concept of remigration is ours and so any mention and defense of remigration is benefitial for the long term goal of adopting all encompassing remigration policies.

The Reconquista was also a religious war. Do you think Catholicism should once again become a central pillar of Portuguese identity ?

Yes. I am a Catholic and the faith was an integral part of our history, culture and identity for centuries. It was passed down to us from our fathers and grandfathers and to pass it to our sons is one of the greatest nationalist duties we can fulfill.

The Church is rather discreet on the issues you defend. Isn't it too progressive for your ideals?

Totally. Unfortunately (and I say this with respect as a lay man) most of the priests are liberal, relativistic cowards who have replaced their faith for a weak doctrine of empty nothingness that inspires no soul to Heaven. Gladly, there are still some traditional priests which I like to follow and whose masses I attend.

You tackle sensitive subjects in a straightforward manner. Have you ever been confronted with attempts at censorship or pressure to limit your freedom of expression ?

I am permanently banned on Youtube, our movements account on IG was banned with 13k followers (more than a lot of parties put together), I have been banned 12 times on Tik Tok (a platform on which I could have 40/50 k followers by now), I have been intercepted by police for doing legal banner drops, taken out of conference rooms by aggressive cops, taken to the police station for peacefully protesting in a immigrant crowded area etc etc.

How do you perceive the state of freedom of expression in Portugal and Europe ?

Freedom of expression is absolute: it either exists for everyone or doesn’t exist for anyone. Nationalists like Dries Van Langenhove, Martin Sellner and many others across Europe know that their freedom of expression is limited and conditioned. The rule of law, liberties and certain rights are suspended and put on pause when it concerns nationalists. This proves that Nationalism is the only opposition to the status quo and the alternative to a globalist tyranny. This only gives us more hope and strength whilst showing that the regime is losing the ideological and cultural war.

Voxeuropa is a media that gives a voice to right-wing voices often marginalized by the mainstream media. What do you think of our mission, and what message would you like to send to our readers ?

Voxeuropa is a great project and my main message for everyone at Vox Europa and all its readers is to never give up because victory is around the corner for those who keep going amidst the chaos.

Thank you Afonso !

Chez Breizh-info

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

George Simion is the nationalist candidate in the second round of the Romanian presidential election. Having won almost 41% of the vote in the first round on May 4, 2025, he will face off on Sunday May 18 against the independent liberal candidate Nicușor Dan, who took almost 21%. George Simion, president of the Alliance for Romanian Unity (AUR) could become Romania's next president.

Belgian journalist Lionel Baland works with a number of European newspapers, including Breizh-info (French-speaking), for which he conducted this second interview with George Simion to better understand the man who answered the call of the Romanian people following the democratic fiasco.

How do you explain the incredible electoral result you achieved in the first round of the presidential elections?

The vote on May 4, 2025 shows that Romanians want real change more than anything else. I got twice as many votes as my opponent, the representative of the globalists and the George Soros agenda and supporter of the December 2024 coup, Nicușor Dan. The cancellation of the November and December 2024 presidential elections was a violent, unconstitutional and totalitarian act. We would never have thought that such an event was possible and that, moreover, it could happen in a member state of the European Union. But it did happen, and the Romanians reacted. I was very impressed by the mobilization of Romanians in the diaspora, people who have been working abroad for many years now but who want a country to which they can return with love and without fear of being suffocated by bureaucracy or the enormous problems facing the health and education sectors. We have shown that, together, we form an extraordinary force.

Was the first-round election campaign fair?

It was a different kind of campaign, conducted largely on the Internet. Many people were expecting massive street demonstrations, but that didn't happen. Previously, we had organized huge marches with hundreds of thousands of participants. Of course, in an election campaign, every political player denounces the behavior of his opponents. There's nothing extraordinary about that.

What are the fundamental differences between your ideas and those of the other candidate in the second round, Nicușor Dan?

First of all, my opponent obeys the globalist Emmanuel Macron and closely follows the agenda of George Soros. He doesn't care about the national interests of the Romanian people, but those of the globalist establishment. We support the natural family, which begins with marriage between a man and a woman, while my opponent allows so-called “pride marches” in the streets of Bucharest. Romania should prefer its national flag, not the rainbow flag. Unlike Nicușor Dan, I was on the side of freedom and the fundamental right to choose, both when, during the pandemic, the establishment wanted to lock us up at home and force us to be vaccinated, and, today, when the threat of censorship hangs extremely heavy. I want free and fair elections, nothing more.

Are you going to try to set up a government that will include the invalidated and then banned candidate Călin Georgescu and the leader of the nationalist POT party Anamaria Gavrilă, who has withdrawn in your favor?

Romania is in an exceptional situation. It suffered a terrible shock in December 2024. Călin Georgescu received the most votes in the first round of the presidential elections on November 24, 2024 and was then excluded without any plausible justification. It is only natural that he should be part of the leadership of the Romanian state, if, of course, he so desires. As far as Anamaria Gavrilă is concerned, apart from the fact that her party, POT, is our ally, I very much appreciated that Anamaria proved to be an honorable person and withdrew from the electoral race to support my candidacy. Of course, I'd like Anamaria to be part of the future government. Naturally, after May 18, we will have discussions to propose the best governance option for Romania.

What will you do to try and put an end to the war in Ukraine?

For more than three years now, we have witnessed the military-industrial complex making billions of euros by destroying property and infrastructure and killing innocent people. Russia continues to feed on chaos. It is crucial that this war unleashed by the Russian Federation against Ukraine comes to an urgent end. This situation is leading nowhere. I am an advocate of dialogue, peace and a return to normalcy. I firmly believe that US President Donald Trump can finally bring both sides to the negotiating table to achieve a ceasefire and end this war for good. From 2022 onwards, Romania helped Kiev with everything it needed, but I will never accept sending Romanian soldiers to their deaths on the Ukrainian front. A large community of over half a million ethnic Romanians living in Ukraine has been deprived of its rights. This is a crucial issue, and I will never stop defending their fundamental rights. I am a supporter of peace and of what is right.

Thank you George !

Bei Compact

Chez Breizh-info

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram | TikTok

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.