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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.

Your activism began at a very early age. What prompted you, as a young student, to take up such a divisive cause ?

At the time, we saw great potential in the German-speaking world, but a lack of a platform. New-right, modern, professional activism that focuses exclusively on the issue of identity and migration, with a clear European orientation. That was the vision and from it emerged the most successful patriotic NGO: generation identity.

You co-founded the Austrian identitarian movement in 2012, taking inspiration from the French identitaires. But some criticize this style as being more theatrical than substantive. How do you respond to those who say your happenings lack concrete solutions ?

I think these critics don't quite understand the meaning of metapolitical activism. The action is always symbolic. Their task is to focus attention, get people thinking and start debates.

We are the only ones who have been consistently proposing concrete solutions for 12 years. The great replacement, Fortress Europe and remigration are terms that have been significantly shaped and popularized by Identitarians.

What memories do you have of those early days, and what motivated you to structure this activism at that particular time?

It was a time of change and upheaval. I was studying in Vienna and a group of young new right-wingers quickly gathered around a reading circle. We brought the French spark into the germanosphere and a time full of adventure began. A mission on the Aegean, in the French Alps, on the Brandenburg Gate. Our movement was a real youth movement. no one in the IB was older than 25. It was a magical and brilliant time!

You are regularly vilified as a racist, right-wing extremist and, very quickly, a Nazi. How do you respond to those who accuse you of promoting hatred and radicalizing a generation ?

These are, of course, cheap demonizations. We love our people, but respect all other cultures. “Anti-racism” has become a code word for ”anti-environmentalist”

What we have actually achieved is the opposite. We created a new type of right-wing activist who no longer conformed to the old clichés, who emancipated himself from genuine extremism, strategic, militant dead ends and symbolic fetishes. Identitarian, patriotic “street workers” have had massive success in professionalizing patriotic activism over the last 10 years, from Paris to Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Bern and London.

Your activism exposes you to institutional pressures and militant violence. How do you deal with these challenges on a daily basis ?

We are waging a defensive two-front war against the left-wing terrorist Antifa and censorship, debanking, surveillance and repression by the elites. No one is more under fire than the patriotic opposition. We only survive because we withstand repression and terror with great discipline and perseverance. In everyday life, this means remaining vigilant at all times and taking care of our own safety, as well as countering illegal infiltration attempts and surveillance. I don't want to go into detail here, but we have gained a lot of experience in this area.

You are organizing, with the help of others, the first large-scale European event on remigration in Milan on May 17. Can you explain what this event is and its main objective ?

The aim is to give more substance to the term remigration, which was popularized by our activism in 2024, among other things. We invite influencers, politicians and activists to network and present our vision for Europe together. The message is: we network, we professionalize, we unite: remigration is inevitable.

“Remigration” is a term you put forward. How would you define this concept, and what would be the first concrete steps to implement it if you had the power to do so ?

The whole thing is of course a complex issue. But there are some simple first steps.

• closing the borders and systematic pushbacks for all illegals.

• the creation of charter cities outside Europe for migrants.

• the deportation of all illegals from Europe to their home country, or the transfer to these non-European centers.

That would be the first phase of remigration. Subsequently, the parallel societies of non-assimilated people would be targeted.

Who takes part in these summits, and above all how do you intend to convince people outside the identitarian movement that remigration is a necessary solution?

There are activists, influencers, experts and politicians. Different people, but each driving remigration in their own field. We want to make the term known and popularize it. It has to become a positive myth that tells everyone: we can still turn this thing around. We can save Europe!

This is the spark of hope that millions are waiting for!

You were at the center of the controversy surrounding the Potsdam conference in 2024, not least because of the influence of your ideas on politicians within the AfD. Today, faced with the AfD's various successes, what should their tactics be ?

The AfD must remain popular and provocative. Its biggest opponent at the moment is not the left but the “conservatives”, who pretend to be anti-migration. The AfD must expose and overcome the CDU. To do this, it needs to take a clear and sharp line, i.e. continue to propagate remigration. In contrast, the CDU is losing its voter base from betrayal to betrayal, which can be taken over by the AfD. Together with the protest and non-voters, this can result in majorities. The prerequisite for this is that the AfD does not pander to the mainstream, but challenges and changes it!

The AfD in East Germany is scoring the highest with a less ambivalent discourse than in the West. Should the AfD let Bjorn Hoecke take the lead in the next elections ?

The party itself has to decide that, I don't interfere in party personnel matters. Björn Höcke is clearly the AfD's most successful politician. At the same time, there are undeniable differences between East and West. It is not for nothing that the mainstream parties in Germany also have different strategies for East and West. The AfD cannot ignore this either.

In any case, it would be fatal to put the entire party on a “soft” western course. The West must follow the successful course of the East. But it must be implemented differently there.

What do you think of the European Union as an institution? Can it be reformed to incorporate ideas like remigration, or should it be dismantled altogether ?

A good question! I think that a reform is theoretically possible. But at the moment it looks as if the old elites are entrenching themselves in their institutions. The example of Romania is a warning shot. They switch off the democracy simulation when an election jeopardizes their positions of power.

We need European unity. Petty, outdated nationalism does us no good and ultimately harms every nation because it makes Europe weak and vulnerable.

But it may be that this alliance will have to be built in parallel to the EU, as a completely new force, if the old elites continue to hold it in scourge.

On the vorfeld, should right-wing Europeans move closer to the Americans following Trump's victory and the shifting of the overton window? What is your tactic ?

We urgently need alternative networks and communication channels to the old liberal transatlanticists! A completely new force is emerging in America that is very interested in a network with identitarians in Europe. Of course, we must not be naive. America remains an alien power with its own interests. But there is an ideological consonance that is a basis for exchange. The decisive factor will be censorship-free platforms that well-meaning Americans could make available to the patriotic opposition in Europe for educational work and networking. If the X-effect spreads to other Silicon Valley companies, that would be a game changer.

What should be the link between Europe, Russia and the United States? Trump embodies a line close to our own, but is it really good news for Europe if the countries around it adopt stronger policies, even from leaders who may share your ideas ?

Europe must become sovereign. This also means that the petty, old “sovereignism” of individual nation states is not the solution in many respects. We need economic, digital and military autonomy in order to be taken seriously. The language of world politics is power, not morality. Our old, decadent elites are incapable of making Europe strong. That's why JD Vance is right for now: the first and greatest enemy is within. Remigration is the top priority. But on the way there, geopolitical sovereignty must remain a non-negotiable goal. Foreign powers and empires must have no influence on Europe. No European patriot may become dependent on them or be on their payroll! Despite all the justified enthusiasm about Trump's reforms, this must remain clear.

Russia is seen by some as a potential ally against Western liberalism, but it also has its own imperialist ambitions. Isn't it risky to move closer to it, to the point of compromising the European sovereignty you advocate ?

European sovereignty must not be relinquished under any circumstances. Any one-sided dependency must be avoided or, where it still exists, reduced.

Neither Putin nor Trump are “bad” or “good”. They simply represent the interests of their countries, which are not ours. That is why we need our own representation of interests. In terms of domestic policy, we can certainly learn a lot from other countries without idealizing the situation there. But that doesn't mean that these states automatically become allies. As the saying goes: a nation has no eternal enemies, only eternal interests. And in my opinion, it is in Europe's interests to have a relationship on an equal footing with Russia and America so that it can devote all its energy to the onslaught in the south, remigration and the renaissance of its peoples.

I'm a member of the Voxeuropa team, a media organization that sees itself as an alternative voice as well as a network for the right in Europe. What do you think of our approach ?

Voxeuropa, the voice of europe. A good approach and a good name ! The creation of a European consciousness in the national camp is more important today than ever. In the coming years, foreign powers might try to drive Europe into a new 30-year war and play the nation states off against each other. We could experience sudden revivals of revanchism and legacy enmities, which in the end will only benefit foreign countries.

All Western European countries are suffering from the same disease and our Eastern European brothers are already showing the first symptoms. Multiculturalism, self-hatred, globohomo, Islamization, population exchange, censorship and self-hatred. The solution is patriotism and remigration, and that throughout Europe. Voxeuropa could become a catalyst for this realization !

Thank you Martin !

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

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

At a time when Ireland is going through a tumultuous period, marked by issues such as immigration and the persistent separation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, Yan Mac Oireachtaigh is emerging as a notable figure on the political landscape. Head of Óige Náisiúnach, the youth wing of An Páirtí Náisiúnta (the National Party), this Irishman has a vision of a unified nation, rooted in its Gaelic roots.

Could you introduce yourself to our readers?

Thank you for having me! My name is Yan Mac Oireachtaigh, I am the leader of Óige Náisiúnach, the youth wing of the National Party (NP) in Ireland. Our job in Óige Náisiúnach is to ensure that in all matters, be it economic, cultural or spiritual that the Irish people are prioritised at every corner of life. We exist to maintain the flame of nationalism, a flame which has lived in the hearts of the Gael for millennia. We won't let it die out in our lifetime. As stewards of the nation, it is our job to preserve it and hand the torch onto future generations.

What prompted you to join the National Party and become the leader of its youth wing? Was there a triggering event in your life?

I first joined the NP in 2019 as this was the year following the 2018 infamous abortion referendum, which saw Ireland shamefully vote to remove all constitutional protections for unborn babies from our constitution. This cleared the way for government-supported abortion legislation that has resulted in the murder of ~51,000 unborn babies since 2019. This industrial slaughter of the most vulnerable in our society sickened me to the core and propelled me to research which political party was the most strongly pro-life, which turned out to be the National Party. The death-cult of abortion is essentially what inspired me to begin real-life activism as before that I wasn't very political at all. After joining the NP, I threw myself into party activism, rising through the ranks and eventually leading me to take charge of the youth wing, 'Óige Náisiúnach', or 'Nationalist Youth'.

Have you ever been targeted by the authorities or the justice system for taking a stand? If so, why?

‘Targeting' from state authorities can take many forms. It can be political policing, for example, like the (many) occasions when our government resources are wasted by members of An Garda Síochána who challenge our members for waving political banners. One such banner (visible on our YouTube channel NationalPartyIE) simply stated "Ireland Belongs To The Irish", which is a direct quote from renowned Irish Nationalist hero Pádraig Pearse, who fought in the 1916 Easter Rising. These attempts at shutting down our political activities show that the words of our patriot dead who fought for Irish independence are now completely at odds with the beliefs and globalist 'virtues' of the current Irish government. We have furthermore seen clear examples of heavy-handed, political policing carried out by our nation's law enforcement, with Irish citizens across Ireland attacked by the Gardaí for peacefully protesting the ongoing forceful plantation of Irish communities being initiated by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Arrested protestors have also been heavily prosecuted, with convicted protestors often receiving heavy sentences, which in my opinion are clearly political acts from our politically bias activist judiciary.

How do you respond to those who accuse you of extremism or “hatred” for your ideas ?

How do I respond? The answer is I don't. Responding to such ludicrous accusations is counterproductive to the work we're doing. Those who accuse us of being guilty of hatred are greatly mistaken. The only thing I'm guilty of is love. Love for my family, love for my community, and love for my nation. Those who scream the loudest about hatred fail to understand that I love my country too much to sit idly by and watch it be destroyed. Those who accuse us of extremism are further mistaken of course. Our political viewpoints are traditional in nature and would have been completely socially acceptable up until relatively recently in Irish politics. Regardless, our position doesn't have to be justified based off of how many people agree or disagree with us, nor will our basic principles change with the wind for short-term gain. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong.

What is the political situation in Ireland? What about the National Party?

The political situation in Ireland is strained, despite appearing stable to the outside world. Mass immigration, exacerbating our ever-worsening housing crisis, has fueled a heavy backlash against the status quo. The rise of a perceived nationalist party like Sinn Féin is taking shape, but whether Sinn Féin will have enough momentum to lead a government by 2029 is honestly becoming more doubtful. They experienced a serious drop in support in 2024 following their sharp increase in the 2020 general election. The scene is ripening for a nationalist party, such as the National Party, to emerge and deal serious blows to the regime at the ballot box. However, the cordon sanitaire—or firewall—around us remains very strong, despite us being the only right-wing nationalist party with elected representation in Ireland. I am certainly looking forward to seeing how the liberal-woke government of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will prop up the issues of mass immigration while pretending to tackle them head-on. I, for one, cannot see the center holding much longer than it currently is, as Ireland is generally a few years behind the rest of continental Europe regardless.

How would you describe the current situation in Ireland? Has the government betrayed the Irish people?

I think the situation is certainly tense. The regime has bought itself another four years, but the 100 years of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael rule are nearing their end. The government has certainly betrayed the Irish people, treating us as second-class citizens in our own country—a disgraceful reality. However, much of the anger is directed toward Sinn Féin for posturing as a nationalist party, only to unequivocally fail on the identity and mass immigration issues. They have betrayed a lot of their working-class voter base in particular, and this hasn’t gone unnoticed. In once-strongholds like Tallaght-South, where I polled at 5.3% in the June 2024 elections, Sinn Féin saw three out of five councillors elected in 2019; fast forward to 2024, and they struggled to secure a single seat. Things are certainly brewing at a local level, which will make the next few years all the more interesting.

What do you think of the UK's continuing influence over Northern Ireland? Is reunification realistic?

I think the UK’s influence over Ireland is obviously nothing positive. Our own politicians are to blame for doing little to nothing about pursuing a united 32-county republic. They seem far more in favor of cozying up to the Crown and piggybacking off its security utilities, as the RAF patrols our skies. It’s quite simply embarrassing. We should be harnessing our own defence capabilities instead of relying on others and figuring out a way to remove British rule from our northeasternmost territory for good. Partition has had a profoundly negative effect, demoralising the Irish people over the last 100 years. I believe Irish reunification will happen sooner rather than later, however, because at the end of the day, Ireland is an island, and everything gravitates toward a united Ireland—be it economy, culture, or politics. It’s more a matter of how rather than when. Most major political parties don’t delve deeply into how we could achieve a united Ireland, and there’s a reason for that: they don’t want to see it happen anytime soon. This is a complete betrayal of the 800-year struggle our ancestors faced against British rule.

The National Party advocates a “united, Gaelic and free” Ireland. What does this vision mean in practice in a country that is still divided in two?

We advocate for a united Ireland—Gaelic and free—because it’s the only way we can truly have it. When the British Empire planted our six counties, they intended to wipe out the native Gaels. This didn’t work, however, as Gaels can be quite a stubborn race of folk. It’s this stubborn characteristic that will ultimately attain us victory in the end. But the question doesn’t quite end with a country still divided in two, I feel. For example, if we were to have a united Ireland tomorrow, we would still be speaking English as our primary language, and we would also still be enslaved to the international financial monetary system. Essentially, Ireland would be neither Gaelic nor free. What we seek is a complete revitalisation of our native tongue and culture—a Gaelic revival that should have taken place 100 years ago following the end of the Irish Civil War. It requires massive political will to achieve. Freeing ourselves from international financial slavery will also be difficult but doable. We would start by rearming the Irish nation through increased defense expenditure and ditching the Euro currency in favor of re-establishing the Irish punt. Of course, ideally, we would do this under the guise of a united Ireland of 32 counties or work toward reunifying our island away from British rule.

You seem to emphasize culture and identity in your struggle. Why is metapolitics so crucial for nationalists today?

Yes, we do believe that culture and identity are critical to defining who we are, who we love, and who we will defend. They quite literally shape us in politics. As the saying goes, "Politics is downstream from culture," and this is a very true statement.

I feel that metapolitics plays an important role in shifting the Overton window toward our ideas, which we are currently doing very well in Europe. We have a strong surge of metapolitical groups here in Ireland, most notably the localised 'Says No' protest groups that have been popping up all over the country. These groups have played a major role in keeping the idea of resisting what we call the "plantation" in the eyes and minds of the average Irish person.This has its perks, notably keeping the debate alive and well in the political arena.

I had the honor of working closely with Tallaght Says No before, during, and after the elections. The people you meet there are regular, salt-of-the-earth, genuine folk who don’t want to see their country overwhelmed by mass immigration—a noble cause to fight for.

NB: 'plantation' refers to the settlement of migrants in centers within Irish towns and villages.

How is the National Party countering the influence of progressive elites in the Irish media, education and culture?

The best way to counter the progressive elites is to make oneself as self-reliant as possible on as many fronts as possible. Over the years, we have built a serious network of Irish nationalists and seen a massive increase in our social media following. The best way to counter their measures against nationalists is simply to produce your own media and ensure it meets a professional standard, so it can compete with state entities and various other leftist non-profit media groups. I think we do this quite well, and our volunteers who run the show in that regard deserve the thanks!

When it comes to education and culture, it’s a lot more difficult. Countering various media has been made far simpler due to the age of social media, but the latter requires a serious effort. We put this forward with various activities at our conferences, such as presentations, workshops, and we even offered Irish language classes for members of all levels. However, this is no match for the state’s capabilities in that arena, and until one becomes the state, I believe nationalists will always be behind because of the infinite money generator the state has through our taxes.

Social networks have transformed the dissemination of ideas. How are you using X and other platforms to advance your cause?

Utilising key platforms is one of the most important things one can do in the age of social media. Not posting regularly is a serious blunder, and it requires having high-quality content to be promoted for the general public to see you as professional and credible—otherwise, they won’t take you seriously. That’s a fate that equates to political obscurity, which I find a lot of accounts or knockoff nationalist organisations fall into, and they pay the price in public appearance for it.

We have used X and various other platforms for videos and photos of our activities; otherwise, in today’s world, it’s as if it didn’t happen! Utilising the X space can also be interesting for talking directly with your base.

What do you think of the electoral success of parties like the AfD in Germany, Vlaams Belang in Flanders or the RN in France? Is this a model for Ireland?

I think the electoral success seen across the continent with Vlaams Belang, AfD, and other parties is very promising.

The wave of support for terms like 'Remigration' is pulling some right-of-center parties further to the right, particularly on mass immigration. I believe this will lead to a very promising era in the 2030s, where we will see a European awakening, because so far, the 2020s have been an incredible decade, and our power will only rise.

Do I think these are models to follow? I'm not sure they are. Taking inspiration from them and helping to build our movement is absolutely a good idea, yes; however, following a model that is non-Irish tends to fail hard in Ireland. We have seen groups attempt to mimic the likes of the BBB's instant electoral success in the Netherlands and other parties, be it in Britain or on the continent, only to be met with crippling failure.

The need for an Irish movement to remain Irish—maintaining its truth to the past while at the same time handing a tradition to the future—is very critical for any movement, particularly in Ireland.

There's a buzzword on the European scene: “remigration”. How do you understand it?

To us, 'Remigration' is first and foremost a solution—a solution that will see the repatriation of foreign illegals, criminals, and welfare sponges, as well as any other non-national who simply does not contribute to the economy.

Following this, legal immigration can be cut down over a period of a few years, particularly with a heavy reduction of those coming into the country legally, as they are the bulk of replacement immigration, and this issue needs to be dealt with swiftly. But what to do with the many non-nationals living in our country already, you might ask? The best way to address this is through a case-by-case basis.

Not all 'immigrants' are equal—some are genuinely integrated into society, while others quite simply are not. Some contribute, and others don’t. This will be the most difficult question any state that attempts to implement Remigration will face in the future, but it is quite doable nonetheless over a period of time. Europeans must make up a comfortable supermajority of their respective nations; otherwise, a future like that of South Africa awaits us.

NB : Fianna Fáil | Fine Gael: Ireland's dominant centrist and liberal political parties.

Thank you Yan !

Subscribe now

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

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

Bei Compact

Chez Breizh-info

In a world in search of bearings, where public debate is often marked by emotion rather than analysis, certain voices stand out. Today, I welcome one of them: David Engels. German-speaking Belgian historian, specialist in Rome and committed thinker. Chair of Roman history at the Université libre de Bruxelles from 2008 to 2023, then research professor at the Instytut Zachodni in Poznan until 2024, he has devoted his work to the intellectual history of the West and German-Polish relations. A prolific author, he has recently published "Defending civilizational Europe. A short treatise on hesperialism" (Paris, 2024). He is also a regular contributor to public debate, on Cnews, Ligne droite and at various events, notably the Iliade, Academia Christiana and recently the MEGA 2 conference in Brussels.

As a German-speaking Belgian, you're at one of the crossroads of European culture. What lessons can you draw from this?

Indeed, it's a rather atypical identity: being Belgian is not an obvious national identity, but being German-speaking Belgian (of which there are barely 70,000) is more than a minority. And yet, it's an enormous opportunity: bathed in at least two great cultures - the German and the French - I've always felt first and foremost European before Belgian. I know that's quite rare, as most Europeans define themselves first and foremost by their “national” identity, but it opened my eyes to the reality of our shared European identity, because although Romanic and Germanic cultures may seem very different, there's a lot that unites them - and my current life in Poland is broadening this horizon to the West Slavic world too.

You began your career as a historian specializing in Roman history. Can you tell us what attracted you to this period of history and how it has influenced your subsequent work?

Although I've been drawn to Antiquity since childhood, my priority has always been global history, and if I eventually ended up in a university chair devoted to the Roman world, it was rather because this “choice” was, paradoxically, the one that specialized me the least, as it was far more generalist in time and space than, for example, a specialization in the European Middle Ages.

What were the main intellectual transitions you underwent as you moved from the study of Roman history to that of the intellectual history of the West and European identity?

From the outset, comparisons between the great civilizations have been my main interest, and over the years, the theories I've developed on this subject have become increasingly clarified and perfected. Understanding Europe's current suicidal state has also led me to rediscover my own cultural heritage, and to develop my own approach to European patriotism, which I have called “hesperialism”; a patriotism that is not only political, but above all cultural and spiritual. This quest has led me increasingly back to Christianity, albeit from a rather perennialist angle, so that, for the time being at least, this interest in transcendence is at the heart of my recent research.

How has your experience as a research professor at the Zachodni Institute in Poznan influenced your intellectual approach?

Culturally, the discovery of Poland enabled me to correct my vision of Europe, which until then had been focused on the Franco-German binomial. And politically, being at the heart of the attempt to re-inform the European public about the many lies and political pressures systematically generated by the European media and elites was a rather tough, but highly informative formative phase - including the experience of the Polish conservatives' ultimate defeat in the face of this concerted action.

In your work on European identity, what are the main trends or challenges you've identified in understanding what it means to be “European” in the contemporary context?

The two main challenges, which are closely linked, are the European Union's unwillingness to define itself as a specific civilizational entity and not just as a world state located, somewhat coincidentally, on the European continent, and its citizens' lack of a general historical culture, both of which are the result of a systematic desire to deconstruct (and reconstruct) identity. Even at the height of nationalism in the 19th century, few Europeans would ever have doubted that they all belonged to a single, very specific, common civilization; today, on the other hand, in the midst of a united Europe, few Europeans have retained this awareness - it's as absurd as it is sad.

How do you see the role of the historian in the current public debate on questions of identity, civilization and multiculturalism in Europe, particularly in relation to the concept of Remigration?

It's essential, because history is at the heart of what defines our identity. European identity doesn't have to be “constructed”; it's been there since the early Middle Ages (because our civilization seems to me fundamentally distinct from the Greco-Roman one) and runs through history right up to the present day. The only problem is that, unlike many other centuries, it is no longer “conscientized”, because everything that would make it possible to do so is systematically ostracized: the importance of the Christian faith, the particularities of this typically European “Faustian impulse”, the greatness of our past history over more than a thousand years, the fundamental difference between our civilization and others, and so on. So, defining Europe in terms of human rights and denying (or discrediting) the notion of “civilizations” must automatically lead, sooner or later, to globalism and multiculturalism. Only if we finally realize what unites us as Europeans can we defend this identity - and, at the same time, create a civilizational framework in which the criteria for rejecting, welcoming and integrating migrants will be much easier to establish than in the total absence of any notion of identity that we suffer today, and which incites some to identity suicide, others to fundamentalism.

How would you present your book?

David Engels: The essay represents a summary of the hundreds of articles and numerous collective works I've written in recent years; it's a kind of concise systematization of my thinking on European identity and above all on the current situation of our civilization. First, I describe the historical roots of our civilization, then its fundamental “Faustian” identity, and finally the importance of the quest for transcendence for any healthy civilization. I then show how the abandonment of the notion of transcendence as early as the 16th century subsequently deconstructed all our bonds of solidarity, culminating in the present nihilism. I then sketch out the possibilities of a final, “hesperialist” synthesis between these two dialectical phases of our history (and, ultimately, of the history of every civilization), ending the essay with a few remarks on current political challenges.

Can you explain the concept of “hesperialism” and its implications for the future of Europe?

David Engels: At the moment, continental political choices seem to boil down to two options: Europeanism, a kind of syncretism between globalism, entitlementism, liberal-leftism and multiculturalism that has turned European institutions into a political bastion and usurps European identity to further its aims; and sovereignism, which derives from the Europeanist instrumentalization of Brussels the need to abandon European integration and return to the “good old nation-state”. Both options are self-destructive: the first, because it dismantles European identity from within; the second, because a return to thirty or so nation-states will not solve our ideological problems (the UK is as “woke” now as it was before it left the EU), and risks transforming our continent into a chessboard for the interests of other great empires, with the real risk of seeing our small nation-state, on average scarcely bigger than a Chinese city, played off against each other. Hesperialism sees itself as a third way: a European patriotism that places the notion of European civilization at its core.

How can we defend our European heritage and keep it alive?

The EU needs to show its strength on the outside by guaranteeing our freedoms on the inside, instead of doing exactly the opposite. On the one hand, this means reforming its institutions to give it the means it needs to defend our strategic interests in the world, while at the same time limiting its powers once again in the face of the regions, metropolises and nations. But much more importantly, we need to replace the universalist ideology that is eating away at our institutions with a genuine European patriotism that is proud of its age-old heritage, rather than discrediting it. It is this last battle that is the most important, and it will not be won on the political terrain, but above all on the cultural one. In this area, the right has a great deal to learn, and must first and foremost shed the liberal illusions that it is the economy, not culture, that determines political success. And of course, we have to start with ourselves and live our ideals in everyday life, as I showed in my book “Que faire” (What to do).

What is your outlook on Europe's future in an increasingly globalized and multipolar world? What challenges should it take up to preserve its cohesion and identity?

As European civilization weakens, other great civilizations, which have been systematically strengthened by our industrial delocalization and the sell-off of our technological know-how, will take their place; a “multipolar” world is inevitable, because the hegemony of the United States is well and truly over. But let's not delude ourselves about what such multipolarity implies for Europe: certainly, such a situation promises new balances and, perhaps, a certain emancipation of Europe from its transatlantic ally. But at the same time, such multipolar balances between great empires, especially in a globalized context, are always highly unstable and require a certain “will to power”, a serious military presence, real collective patriotism and an excellent diplomatic corps. For the moment, we have none of these - and we shouldn't delude ourselves that, from China through India and Russia to the Muslim and African worlds, the other great civilizations are driven by an instinct of resentment, even revenge, towards us.

Shouldn't we be building more and more of a European Vorfeld?

Indeed: it's vital that European patriots stop allowing themselves to be divided by anachronistic nationalist impulses, and focus instead on the immediate threats that concern them all, by defending their common European identity against internal and external threats. Paradoxically, it is now at European level that what remains of the nation-state can be defended. Schools, universities, academies, publishing houses, works of art, model communities, businesses, media, social solidarity systems - everything needs to be built if we are to create a hesperialist society strong enough to withstand the great economic and ideological crises that are fast approaching.

Thank you David !

Chez Breizh-info

Bei Freilich

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

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

Julien Rochedy, a French intellectual, has moved between political commitment, entrepreneurship and international experience. A former leader of the Youth Front National. After living in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Rome. Today, he dedicates himself to intellectual pursuits and sharing his analyses on YouTube, X, and Instagram.

Could you introduce yourself to our readers?

I am an essayist and publisher. Over the past four years, I have written four books, plus one in collaboration, and I am preparing to publish, through my publishing house, not only French authors who bring something new to the debate but also relatively unknown Anglo-Saxon authors in Europe who are nonetheless highly respected across the Atlantic. I also seek to publish other European authors in French. On this note, if you know of any German-speaking authors who deserve recognition here, feel free to suggest them to me! I would love to connect European and American intellectual traditions that belong to a broadly "identitarian" movement, which still needs to be developed into a proper school of thought.

How can we defend and sustain European heritage?

By shedding a number of misconceptions within our own camp. For instance, I am currently studying the principle of the nation-state, and the more I explore it, the more I realize that it has been quite destructive to European heritage and civilization as a whole. Yet, many of us still define ourselves as "nationalists" and think solely within the administrative framework of our nations—an inheritance that is actually quite recent in our history, as it can primarily be dated to the 19th century.

Our European heritage is a blend of the local and the civilizational; it means being both localist and imperialist at the same time, provincial and European, belonging both to a village and to a civilization. I believe we are entering a neo-feudal era that will see the return of this dual affiliation. In the Middle Ages, it was the allegiance to fiefdoms and Christendom. One way or another, we are returning to these forms of political mediation, balancing the smallest and the grandest scales.

What is your view on Remigration?

In an ideal world, all peoples would have their own lands, and those living on others’ lands without a right of conquest should return to their ancestral homelands. Unfortunately, while an incentive-based policy should be implemented to encourage Africans and Muslims to return to their countries of origin, I do not believe a large-scale remigration is entirely possible within one or even two generations—perhaps even more. I therefore believe that secession, separation, and territorial partition are much more feasible. In fact, geographical separation is already taking shape naturally, with Whites moving to rural areas and small towns, while immigrants remain in the larger cities. Once again, it is often the state that seeks to disperse them everywhere to prevent or delay a partition that, in my opinion, is inevitable.

What does it mean to be "identitarian"?

I recently stated in a video that an identitarian is, above all, a heretic against the prevailing Western religion—the one that has replaced Christianity and is based on three grand myths:

1. Egalitarianism – The belief that all men are equal and that all peoples are the same.

2. Universalism – A belief derived from the first myth: if we are all equal, we can all live together under the same rules and values.

3. Globalism – The logical consequence of the first two myths: if we are all equal and can all live together, then we must do so and abolish all borders.

Thus, an identitarian is someone who rejects all these myths and is therefore seen as a blasphemer or a pagan in the eyes of the great religion of the "universal man." Instead of these absurd postmodern beliefs, the identitarian holds that man remains a tribal being as a member of a social species. He therefore needs to be born and raised in culturally homogeneous and familiar environments to develop and perform at his best. That is why he fights against the ethnic heterogeneity of our societies, which he sees as the gravest danger—since no political future or resilience is possible in the framework of excessive ethnic heterogeneity.

As a former leader of the National Front Youth, what lessons have you learned from your political experience, and how does it influence your current work ?

The main lesson I learned is that we should not expect everything from national politics. Societies change primarily through long-term societal processes that require significant cultural investment to influence them. Politics is usually just the outcome of a long-term influence strategy. That is why I now focus more on influencing politicians and, more broadly, decision-making centers. This is what we must all do: create forces of attraction, forces without which politics is impossible—forcing politicians to take us, our interests, our desires, and our will into account. We must operate like lobbies, as a trade union for native peoples. Our ideas must spread everywhere. Our businesses must become essential. Our presence within institutions—police, military, judiciary, media, etc.—must be deep. In short, we must seize power at every level if we truly wish to remain in history, rather than simply "winning an election," which is merely the icing on the cake.

What are the main challenges you have faced in openly sharing your ideas and knowledge on potentially controversial topics ?

I have held these views for so long that I no longer notice the problems they cause me! For example, I am completely banned from obtaining a bank loan in my own country, even though my business is doing well and I comply with all laws. High-level insiders have confirmed to me that this is solely due to my political beliefs and activism. There are other such inconveniences in daily life, but I do not want to dwell on them. After all, in another era, I could have been summarily executed or sent to a gulag to die. So we are not in such a bad situation!

In truth, what bothers me more are my controversial views within my own ideological camp. For instance, this camp is typically sovereigntist, nationalist, anti-European, conspiratorial, anti-environmentalist, pro-Russian, hysterically anti-American, and many other things that I am not at all. This often puts me in uncomfortable positions and alienates the support of many who should otherwise be my allies! But I like it because I do not appreciate conformity, whether it comes from the system or from the so-called "dissidence," which indeed has its own rigid orthodoxy.

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

Of course! The most important of them is Nietzsche. He was my true intellectual master during my adolescence, even though I have since learned to maintain some distance from his ideas. The thinkers of the Conservative Revolution also shaped my youth—I was captivated by Jünger and von Salomon, like many young men on the right. However, I must admit that I was never a great fan of Spengler. One of the authors who most influenced my latest book was Werner Jaeger—his Paideia is essential reading. As for contemporary philosophy, the thinker I admire the most today is a German who, though he does not share "our ideas," is, in my opinion, absolutely brilliant and intellectually stimulating: Peter Sloterdijk. Every one of his books brings a whirlwind of new ideas and fresh perspectives on the world and its problems. He truly honors Germany’s great philosophical tradition.

How has your experience abroad—in Africa, Russia, and the Middle East—enriched your understanding of global issues and international politics?

I have realized that we have entered the era of "civilizational continents." In the past, we felt like we were leaving our country when traveling from one village to another, from one province to another, or from one nation to another. Today, that feeling only truly arises when we leave our continent—when we leave our civilization. If I am in Africa, North Africa, the Middle East, or Asia and my flight to Paris is diverted to Vienna, Rome, or Copenhagen for a 24-hour layover, I still feel like I have "returned home" in some way. I am in the West, in Europe, in my cultural sphere. This realization carries deep meaning and, I believe, should compel us to rethink our political organization. With global giants like Russia, China, India, Brazil, and the United States—states that operate on a continental or near-continental scale—we Europeans must unite if we want to continue existing in the 21st century.

How should Europeans position themselves in relation to global conflicts?

By clearly defining their interests and acting accordingly.

First, regarding our borders: I consider our borders to extend to Russia. Ukraine is part of Europe, so we should be capable of defending it without relying on American support. However, this is currently unrealistic. Without a strong and independent European military, the Americans will remain on our territory—which I do not want (and, in reality, neither do the Americans anymore).

We must also defend our southern and southeastern borders against migratory movements that are only just beginning and that will be utterly catastrophic for our civilization. We will need a comprehensive Mediterranean policy to ensure the stability of states south of the Mediterranean, so they serve as a buffer between Africa and us.

Next, we must address what will be our most significant challenge in the 21st century: energy independence, along with securing access to essential raw materials. These concerns will dictate our alliances and interventions.

Finally, we must pursue a large-scale reindustrialization policy to guarantee our autonomy across nearly all sectors. However, such a policy can only be implemented at the European level.

France and Germany are the two largest European nations. For Europe to function properly, they must move in the same direction. In your view, how can France and Germany collaborate?

First, by remembering history: 90% of the problems we face today stem, directly or indirectly, from the conflicts and rivalries between France and Germany—dating back to the Treaty of Verdun (843)! ;Our fixation on strictly national interests has only weakened Europe and, ultimately, our own "national" interests. Our nations resemble the ancient Greek city-states, which were incapable of uniting (except during the Persian Wars—something worth reflecting on). They spent their time waging war against each other, despite recognizing that they belonged to the same Hellenic civilization.

Since they failed to achieve unity, they were eventually subjugated by the Roman Empire, and all of them gradually and collectively declined—until they faded from history entirely.

I hope we can avoid becoming like the ancient Greek city-states. I hope we learn from the past and do not repeat the same mistakes out of sheer foolishness. France and Germany have everything to gain from political, military, economic, energy, and ecological cooperation. If we fail due to outdated nationalist pettiness and lingering national egos, then what else can I say? We will share the fate of Athens and Sparta after their golden age—we will disappear together, quite simply.

In the German-speaking world, there is a strong link between metapolitics and electoral politics, as demonstrated by various associations and fraternities, largely thanks to the work of German intellectuals like Benedikt Kaiser. How can we take inspiration from the German model?

The Germans have this culture more deeply ingrained because, unlike us French, they were a genuine nation before the rise of the nation-state. As a result, they have a much stronger tradition of local initiative, whereas in France, politics tends to mean expecting everything from the state. We must completely "de-statize" our minds in France. We need to think in terms of localism, provinces, rural areas, associations, lobbying groups, clubs, think tanks—all of which are much more natural structures for Germans or Anglo-Saxons. This is a difficult shift for us because, after centuries of sterile and stifling statism, we are simply not accustomed to it. That is why I believe European integration—by "de-Frenchifying" us in the worst aspects of our national character—could paradoxically help strengthen, protect, and highlight the best of what France has to offer for our shared civilization.

Do you believe we should build a European "Vorfeld" of the right—that is, a set of structures aimed at strengthening ties, particularly through culture and metapolitics?

Yes. I would very much like to see European structures emerge.

I have been discussing this with French-speaking identitarian and conservative intellectuals like David Engels and Antoine Dresse (Ego Non), who are also very open to the European idea. We need an organization that allows us to meet regularly, coordinate our actions, and think together. I hope such a structure will be established soon!

Thank you Julien !

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

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

Today, we're joined by Alice, president of Collectif Nemesis — a movement that defines itself as an “identitarian feminist” group. Founded in 2019, the collective has gained attention through media-driven actions denouncing violence against women, often linking it to immigration and insecurity issues. Their approach has sparked debate across the French political and media landscape. Through her activism, Alice Cordier represents a vision of feminism that both challenges and provokes. Her journey and the positions she's taken offer a unique perspective on contemporary issues of identity, security, and women's rights. We're thrilled to have her with us today to delve into these topics and gain deeper insight into the motivations and goals of Collectif Nemesis.

Could you introduce yourself to our readers and tell us a little about your background ?

Hi, my name is Alice Cordier, and I’m 27 years old. I am the CEO of an association that focuses on denouncing violence against women, especially the types of violence that often go unspoken: violence committed by migrants and the impact of Islamism on French women. The association is called Collectif Némésis. I became involved with the organization five years ago in Paris, after a series of rapes committed by migrants against French women. I was also deeply moved by the rapes in Cologne. Although my studies didn’t initially steer me in this direction — I have a degree in social work and was on track to become a social worker — I ultimately chose to dedicate myself to this cause because of the urgent concerns surrounding immigration.

What are the political priorities for Nemesis?

1. Immigration management: Today’s politicians are completely out of touch. Nationality is granted to anyone, when it should be earned. We need to stop accepting so many immigrants. Our system is already overwhelmed.

2. Firm justice: Many criminals are walking free, even after committing numerous offenses. This makes our country unsafe: we’re forced to live alongside criminals, which leads to a rise in street violence. For example, in 2023, the number of intentional assaults reached an all-time high.

3. Better care for women victims of violence: Many women file complaints, still live with abusive partners, and tragically end up being killed despite their cases being flagged by the police and justice system. In a civilized society, this should never be allowed to happen.

Can you describe the day-to-day reality for women in France today?

In public spaces, women are forced to plan their routes ahead of time to avoid dangerous streets, and to dress accordingly to reduce the risk of aggression. Some even bring a change of clothes to cover up their dresses when taking public transport. Many women also carry pepper spray for self-defense.

It’s horrifying to think that we live in one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, yet it is also one of the most violent. I travel frequently to Eastern Europe, and it was there that I realized the mental burden I carry living in France. Imagine constantly being on alert in the metro or on the street, trying to spot potential attackers in advance. It’s not normal to live like that, but in France, we’ve come to accept it. We’re even more shocked when we see a rape in the news. It’s terrifying.

How do you define your vision of feminism, and how do you think men can contribute to it?

For me, feminism means fighting against violence directed at women simply because they are women. Sexual harassment is a perfect example: unknown men harass or assault women because of their gender, and that’s the only reason. Any civilized man should help ensure women’s safety. Sometimes, this can be as simple as standing next to a woman who seems uncomfortable because of a man’s persistent behavior on public transport.

What message would you like to pass on to women to encourage them to get more involved in your movement?

I want them to think about the future and the kind of world they want for their children. One day, their children will ask them what they did to fight for change. This is a question I asked my parents, and they didn’t have an answer. I won’t allow my daughter to live in the same conditions that I do now.

What is your vision of remigration?

Immigration should be a choice, not something imposed. This is what Denmark is doing. There’s no point in bringing in large numbers of men from high

-crime societies. If we need labor, we can bring in workers from European countries or from societies that are less violent and more similar to ours. We owe nothing to anyone.

Do you think it would be beneficial to create European structures to strengthen our ties between Europeans?

Yes, absolutely. It is necessary. We need to get to know each other, support one another, and work together where possible. We should collaborate intelligently and relay our actions. It’s important that we strengthen our ties and work together as Europeans.

Thank you Alice !

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 | TikTok | Paypal

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

Bei Freilich

Yona, spokesperson for the Nemesis collective, faces a €45,000 fine for displaying a banner. In April 2024, she posted a message saying “foreign rapists out,” prompting a complaint of racism from the left-wing mayor. In response, during the mayor's New Year's address, Yona ironically held up a sign saying “foreign rapists welcome.” Her trial is tomorrow. Today we are publishing her interview, originally conducted in French and German, translated into English.

Can you introduce yourself to our readers and tell us about your background ?

My name is Yona, I am 19 years old and I am a student of economic and social administration. I grew up in a housing project in Marseille, where insecurity was omnipresent, even if I didn't realize it at the time, despite some unpleasant experiences between the ages of 10 and 15.

Then I moved to Besançon, a smaller town that was supposed to be quieter. However, as I grew up and started going out, especially in the evenings, I realized that I couldn't wear a skirt without fear of comments or worse, that I had to avoid certain neighborhoods and even certain streets in the city center. I got into the habit of always looking behind me on my way home after being followed once. I also noticed that the profiles of the people who caused me problems were often similar. Feminism, a cause close to my heart, seemed to be monopolized by the left, but in a very selective way: left-wing pseudo-feminists only talked about assault when it suited their agenda. This dishonesty disgusted me. At 17, I discovered the Nemesis collective, which denounced all violence against women and addressed the impact of immigration on women's safety. At 18, I joined the collective, took part in several shock campaigns, and shortly afterwards became the collective's spokesperson.

Can you tell us what happened to you during the “Foreign rapists out” campaign?

During my town's carnival in April 2024, knowing that the pro-immigration Green mayor would be present, we decided to march past her podium with two placards. I was holding a placard that read “Foreign rapists out.” After this action, I was summoned to the police station and held in custody for eight hours. The town hall had filed a complaint for “incitement to hatred.” Our message simply demanded the expulsion of foreign rapists, without implying that all foreigners are rapists, contrary to what the left was trying to make us say in order to demonize us. While in custody, I was subjected to various forms of pressure: I was told that if I didn't give the name of the girl who was with me or unlock my phone, I would spend the night in a cell. This action received considerable media coverage, and I received support from several political figures on the French right. Our message was repeated throughout France and even in Europe.

Can you describe the daily reality for women in France today?

For many women in France, insecurity is a daily reality. We avoid certain neighborhoods and sometimes adapt our clothing, such as not wearing skirts, to avoid inappropriate comments or behavior. At night, going out becomes stressful, and even on public transportation, we rarely feel safe. Even in broad daylight, we can feel threatened, harassed, followed, or approached in an aggressive manner. Often, these problems come from people with a similar profile, who are immigrants or undocumented. The presence of many people who are required to leave French territory (OQTF), some of whom have already assaulted or raped women, exacerbates this insecurity and makes our daily lives even more difficult.

How would you define your vision of feminism, and how do you think men can contribute to it?

For Nemesis, feminism means above all giving a voice to all women and ensuring that every voice is heard. We are calling for better security by enforcing OQTF and demanding harsher penalties for attackers and rapists, as the current penalties are often too lenient. It is also crucial to refuse to allow women to be made invisible by (trans) men who claim to be women.

We denounce assaults, often committed by people with immigrant backgrounds or in irregular situations, and emphasize that the presence of many individuals with OQTF on the streets exacerbates insecurity. In addition, we fight against backward cultures that hinder women's rights, such as the wearing of the veil or female genital mutilation. In short, for Nemesis, feminism means fighting for safety, freedom (such as being able to go out dressed as you wish) and justice for all women, while addressing the specific problems associated with certain migratory dynamics, which are often neglected by left-wing pseudo-feminism.

What message would you like to send to women to encourage them to get more involved in your movement?

If I had to convince women to join us, I would tell them not to remain passive in the face of the injustices and insecurity we experience. It is crucial to mobilize and get involved to defend our rights and our safety. By joining our movement, you will help make our voices heard and fight against aggression. Together, we have the power to change things and make our environment safer for all women. Your commitment is essential to move forward and achieve the justice we deserve.

What measures would you like to see adopted to improve the conditions of women in France?

We are not a political party and believe that it is up to politicians to guarantee our safety, a job for which they are well paid. However, we are calling for common-sense measures to improve conditions for women in France: stop mass immigration, stop automatically granting French nationality, abolish birthright citizenship and family reunification, and deport foreigners or people with dual nationality who are criminals or delinquents, with a ban on returning to the country. These are simple measures that are applied by many countries, but which still seem very controversial in Western Europe.

Thank you, Yona!

Chez Breizh-info

Bei Freilich

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

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

silience of their ancestors. Jaco Kleynhans embodies this history. Through exclusive interviews, we bring to light realities too often ignored - issues which, though geographically distant, resonate with our identity and our struggles. Here is a man, and a cause, that it is essential to discover.

Jaco, for those who don't know you yet, can you tell us who you are, where you're from and what drove you to become so strongly committed to defending Afrikaners ?

Being an Afrikaner is a complex life. We are a people born at the southern tip of Africa from Dutch farmers, German Protestants and French Huguenots. Yet we are neither Dutch, German nor French. We are Afrikaners with our own language Afrikaans and our own, unique culture and traditions that developed at the southern tip of Africa. Unlike other white peoples in Africa, who have largely left the continent since the end of colonialism, we cannot go anywhere, because we only have one home: South Africa.

Yet Afrikaners are Westerners. We believe strongly in Western civilization and our bond with it is inseparable. These are also the values with which I grew up in a conservative home. After the political change in South Africa in 1994, and Afrikaners' total loss of power and influence, it was already clear to me as a young boy that Afrikaners were going to have to consolidate, work together and work smart to survive.

I grew up in the Western Cape, right in the south of South Africa on a dairy farm, a farm that has been farmed by my family since the 1740s. I grew up with Western values such as honesty, hard work and a calling and that is why I see it as my task and calling today to fight for my people.

What gives you the strength to keep fighting, even when things seem to be going from bad to worse in South Africa?

Life in South Africa is becoming increasingly difficult for Afrikaners. The extent of racial discrimination, violent crimes, such as brutal murders of farmers, hate speech and the attack on our culture, language, education and our institutions such as our monuments, schools and community organisations is very bad. One has to admit it. About 20% of Afrikaners have already left South Africa. For most of us, it is not an option. We are going to stay here and create a future here precisely because we have developed an unbreakable bond with this land and soil over generations. We still have a calling to survive in a dangerous country that is anti-Western, anti-white and anti-Afrikaner, but we remain hopeful.

What defines the Afrikaner essence?

Afrikanerhood is a unique combination of Western culture, faith and values that have developed into a deep ability to survive in Africa. Afrikaners are therefore unique adapted to Africa and are some of the bravest people I know. Afrikaners are obsessed with family, community, but also our place – our land and our love for our environment make us a very unique people. However, our Western origins also make us a daily target.

How would you describe the current political situation in South Africa, especially for Afrikaners, with an ANC government that seems increasingly hostile to Western values?"

There is a sharp increase in hate speech, racism and generally anti-Western rhetoric. This makes life increasingly uncertain and dangerous. South Africa is slowly but surely becoming a failed state. The government is failing in its basic functions such as safety, infrastructure maintenance, education and the economy. This creates great risks but also opportunities for Afrikaners to create new alternatives for our people.

You've often denounced the ANC as a corrupt, anti-Western government. What do you see as the most glaring examples of their failure to govern South Africa for the benefit of all its citizens?

The ANC is extremely corrupt and only interested in enriching a small black elite. Unemployment among black South Africans has doubled in the past twenty years. Of the 60 million people in South Africa, seven million pay tax while 28 million are dependent is from social grants paid monthly by the state. South Africa has the second or third highest murder rate in the world annually. South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world. It is more dangerous for a white farmer on a farm in South Africa than for a citizen of Damascus in Syria or Baghdad in Iraq.

South Africa's economy is in crisis. Unemployment is among the highest in the world and the state is struggling to pay its debts, pay welfare grants and maintain basic functions. The ANC as a government has completely failed.

What do you see as the greatest challenges but also opportunities for your country in the years ahead?"

For Afrikaners, our biggest crises are our safety and economic opportunities. There are 142 laws in South Africa that legalize racial discrimination. Young whites in South Africa struggle to access university and jobs.

South Africa is close to the BRICS, notably Russia and China under the ANC. As an Afrikaner, how do you see Russia's role, particularly in the Ukraine conflict, and does it worry you for your country's future?

The ANC government uses its relationship with Russia, Iran and China as a stick to beat the West. Out Ultimately, these relationships are always there to benefit the ANC leaders financially and to ensure greater influence for these countries in Africa. This could pose major risks in the future.

As Solidarity's head of international relations, what role do you play in making the Afrikaner voice heard and countering policies you deem unjust?

It is my goal to develop a large international network for Afrikaners. We recently managed to get the American president to recognize Afrikaners and his administration has now repeatedly spoken out in favor of Afrikaners. For a defenseless minority, international alliances, good information and media reports about what is happening in South Africa and practical support for the Afrikaner are increasingly important.

You recently traveled to the United States to raise awareness of South Africa's problems among the Trump administration. Do you think American conservatives can help the situation of Afrikaners? How can they help?

Yes, American conservatives have a natural feeling of alliance with Afrikaners and are outspoken in favor of our rights. We expect political pressure, concrete steps by the Trump administration and also eventually financial support from the Americans.

If you could speak directly to European leaders, what would you ask them to do to support people like you in South Africa?"

First of all, it is essential that Europeans take their blinders off about what is happening in South Africa. South Africa is not the liberal, pro-Western democracy that Europeans dreamed of in the 1990s. Europe must take a stand against the ANC government's foreign and domestic policies and actively begin to recognise the right of Afrikaners to a free, secure and prosperous existence in South Africa.

Can we draw a parallel between what Afrikaners have been experiencing for several decades and what Europeans are starting to experience more and more because of African immigration?

Without a doubt, yes. Afrikaners lost our towns, cities and ultimately our country due to mass immigration from traditional black tribal areas, but also from the rest of Africa. A hundred years ago, most Afrikaner settlements were places with a large Afrikaner majority. Today, we are everywhere in South Africa is a minority. This is what Europe is facing if mass immigration is not stopped and mass deportations are not introduced.

Finally, Jaco, I work for Vox Europa, a media outlet that aims to be an alternative voice for conservatives in Europe. What do you think of our approach, and do you see any common ground between our struggle and yours?"

There are strong parallels. We as Afrikaners have also been indoctrinated by left-wing mainstream media for decades. Today, more and more alternative media are emerging. It is needed everywhere in the Western world now more than ever.

Thank you Jaco !

Chez Breizh-info

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

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

Share